Global Perspectives On Stem Cell Technologies 1St Edition Aditya Bharadwaj Eds Full Chapter

Global Perspectives on Stem Cell
Technologies 1st Edition Aditya

Bharadwaj (Eds.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/global-perspectives-on-stem-cell-technologies-1st-edi
tion-aditya-bharadwaj-eds/
Global Perspectives on
Stem Cell
Technologies
EDITED BY
ADITYA BHARADWAJ
Global Perspectives on Stem Cell Technologies
“Stem cells circulate the globe today in settings where patient desperation con-
fronts regulatory confusion and commercial expectation bumps up against ethi-
cal ambiguity. In Bharadwaj’s fearless editorial hands, the intersection of these
forces, centering on novel Indian therapies, comes alive through voices ranging
from academic and reflective to passionate and deeply personal. The book may
haunt, destabilize or challenge. It will not bore.”
—Sheila Jasnoff, Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies at
Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government
Aditya Bharadwaj
Editor
Global Perspectives
on Stem Cell
Technologies
Editor
Aditya Bharadwaj
Department of Anthropology and Sociology
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
ISBN 978-3-319-63786-0 ISBN 978-3-319-63787-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63787-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017954290
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: © Henry Petrides
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword: Good Science, Better Patients
In my 2013 book, Good Science: The Ethical Choreography of Stem Cell

Research (MIT Press),1 I characterized the current era as one in which two
kinds of “good science” go together to drive highly capitalized biomedical
innovation: “good science” as in reproducible, reliable, and robust method
and knowledge, and “good science” as in freighted with ethical questions
such as the moral status of embryos or how to compensate egg donors or
find cures. I investigated this intertwining of the moral and technical in
bio-innovation economies through the example of US and California
pluripotent stem cell research during the 15 years from the first successful
derivation of human embryonic stem cell lines until the political and
technical stabilization of induced pluripotent stem cell research. I devel-
oped a mixed ethnographic/archival/participatory method I called “tri-
age” to collect data with the intent of bringing to light processes whereby
some lives come to matter more than others in relation to an emerging
technology. I examined US Democrats’ and Republicans’ competing
framings of stem cell research; stem cell research’s geographies and geo-
politics as seen from California, especially federal and state dynamics in
the USA; putative brain drains to the UK and Singapore; and a short-
lived rivalry with South Korea over somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning.
I also looked at novel public–private funding and governance structures
that were being erected for dealing with the ever-present risk of market
failure around human cellular technologies at this time, and at how
v
vi Foreword: Good Science, Better Patients
poorly the technical and moral challenges of stem cell research were
addressed by the post-war ethics of what I called the “substitutive research
subject.”
To demonstrate the way that ethical and technical challenges were
articulated together throughout research, and not just before beginning
the research and after the research is let loose upon the social sphere to
have implications or impact, I highlighted California’s “procurial” frame
for human pluripotent stem cell research: pro-cures as the overwhelming
moral mandate and technical challenge; procurement as the simultaneous
ethical roadblock and technical feedstock; and bio-curation as the process
of moving (de)identified characterized tissue and bio-information
between formats and in accounted-for chains of custody. In order to
achieve both epistemologically and morally good science, I argued for
upstream, interactive, and iterative technical, economic, and ethical
innovation, expressed in terms that make sense within the political reper-
toire of a given jurisdiction. I also argued for the iterative, participatory,
and upstream inclusion of distributive justice goals so as to disrupt the
systems-entropy whereby discrimination characteristic of a history, time,
and place is materialized into technologies and their corresponding ethi-
cal instruments. I pushed against the blindness to stratification of the
individualism of much of bioethics, and against the species and mind-
over-body exceptionalism of humanism. I also called for a radical updat-
ing of the epistemologically entrenched and globally circulating and
differentiating category of the substitutive research subject. This work has
had concrete outcomes, ranging from invitations to teach animal research
ethics to engagement with human rights lawyers, and the launch with
colleagues of the Science FARE (feminist, anti-racist, equity) initiative to
urge technical infrastructures to embed social justice goals.2
This important edited collection, Global Perspectives on Stem Cell
Technologies, takes up good science in ways that resonate with my own
development of the term, as well as in quite other ways. In close kinship,
this collection focuses on connections forged by cellular technologies
through “the twin processes of extraction and insertion of biogenetic sub-
stance across multiple terrains ranging from geopolitical borders to areas
between biology and machine, governance and ethical dilemmas, every-
day suffering, and religious as well as secularized morality,” (“Introduction:
vii
Stem Cell Intersections: Perspectives and Experiences”) that Aditya

Bharadwaj felicitously refers to as “bio-crossings.” Nayantara Sheron and
Bharadwaj argue in “Bio-crossing Heterotopia: Revisiting Contemporary
Stem Cell Research and Therapy in India” that “science and emerging
political economy of stem cell technologies around the globe are produc-
ing distinct culture-specific responses” (introduction). Sheron and
Bharadwaj compellingly reimagine stem cells in India “as heterotopias:
manifest entities and discursive sites suffused with real and imagined, and
utopic and dystopic alterations made manifest as bio-crossings gain trac-
tion between the biogenetic, technoscientific, socioeconomic, and geo-
political landscapes of possibilities.”
Sheron and Bharadwaj demonstrate, as I did for the American Medical
Association’s guidelines on medical tourism, how two sets of 2013
Guidelines in India ended up with the consequence of an “automatic
‘good/permissible’ science versus a ‘bad/rogue’ science,” between human
embryonic stem cells (hESC) and somatic autologous cells. In their chap-
ter, “Staging Scientific Selves and Pluripotent Cells in South Korea and
Japan,” Marcie Middlebrooks and Hazuki Shimono show how important
the genre of scientific biography is to establishing good science, which
cannot happen without good scientists. As I did in Good Science, they
reconstruct the portrayal of South Korea’s Hwang Woo-suk before and
after the somatic stem cell cloning scandal. They go further and fruitfully
compare portrayals of Hwang with portrayals of Japan’s Haruko Obokata
during and after the stimulus-triggered acquired pluripotency (STAP)
scandal. When Hwang and Obokata were national heroes, traditional
biographical vignettes were afforded great nationalist significance.
Obokata’s grandmother’s apron in the place of a lab coat, and Hwang’s
cow with whom he shared bucolic roots as a boy, assured their goodness
as moral scientists. Once the scandals broke, however, these same “moral
maternal” tropes began to be treated as evidence of the very flaws that led
to their downfall.
Where I focused on the problems of extending the ethics and episte-
mology of substitutive human and animal models to regenerative medi-
cine, Linda Hogle (“Ethical Ambiguities: Emerging Models of
Donor–Researcher Relations in the Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells”)
draws our attention to a different ethical and epistemological limitation
viii Foreword: Good Science, Better Patients
emerging in stem cell research: the changing nature of trials and how they
advance evidence-based medicine. She draws on her own previous work
to show that “for cell-based products, large-scale trials pose challenges,
blinding is virtually impossible, and endpoints are difficult to establish.”
She convincingly argues that the previous gold standard of good science,
the double-blind randomized controlled trial, is being superseded by
patient activism and computational tools in an emerging assemblage of
evidence-based medicine for the pro-cures era.
Sarah Franklin (“Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Cells Do Fly”) adds a
vital element to the epistemological and geopolitical landscape by zeroing
in on regenerative medicine and its associated industries in the UK. As
she shows, stem cell technologies are increasingly powerful and “disrup-
tive” because they are part of the “technological platform that enabled the
reprogramming of reproductive biology.” “Stage 3 clinical trials in a wide
range of fields,” and “combination products that integrate cells with med-
ical devices, such as patches and scaffolds,” lead to “a far-ranging vision of
induced plasticity delivered through signalling factors extracted from
pluripotent cells and repurposed to trigger in situ cellular reorganisa-
tion.” Franklin points to these technical breakthroughs as well as to
smaller yet higher impactful by-products of changing practice. For exam-
ple, the trend to freeze embryos at a later stage in fertility medicine has
meant that scientists have a diminished source of leftover embryos suit-
able for hESC derivation. Similarly, the development of stem cell product
derived patches that lose many of the cellular properties is making the
delivery of cellular products easier. Franklin challenges readers to con-
sider what contribution the social sciences might play. If there are social
aspects of regenerative medicine throughout the research, development,
and application process, downstream models of social science impact are
likely wrong, too. She argues that we need to develop equally sophisti-
cated models to measure and promote our own research impact.
I want to now turn to another fascinating aspect of this edited collec-
tion. In the title to this Foreword, I have gestured at it with the phrase,
“better patients.” This is a play on the moral and epistemological work
patients and their physicians and advocates do3 which makes the science
better and thus makes their treatment work better, and on the sense of
“being, feeling, or getting better” that we apply to patients who are on the
ix
road to recovery or have reduced symptoms and/or improved quality of

life. The remaining chapters in this collection concern the kinds of good
science captured by this double meaning of “better patients.” Dr. Geeta
Shroff’s chapter, “Establishment and Use of Injectable Human Embryonic
Stem Cells for Clinical Application,” documents her reasons for choosing
a particular population of chronic spinal cord injury (SCI) patients for
hESC-derived transplantations in her Indian embryonic stem cell trans-
plant clinic. She focuses on the needs of those “less likely to suffer oppor-
tunity costs from study participation” for whom there are few treatment
alternatives, and rightly casts this as its own moral imperative. Shroff
displays the methodological virtues of her protocol: its simplicity, the
regenerative nature of the cell line she uses, and the cell culture; freedom
from animal products. The chapter takes time to demonstrate the treat-
ment’s scientific legitimacy in highly recognizable terms, but the empha-
sis is on small clinical improvements that contribute to wellbeing and
more productive life, however manifested, rather than on cures or
increased survival. Petra Hopf-Seidel, in her chapter “Pre-blastomeric
Regeneration: German Patients Encounter hESC in India,” likewise
explains that “each of my patients improved in one way or other, some
visible and measurable, others more invisible with improved stamina,
better moods, or more muscle strength. No one had adverse effects, so I
can say confidently that I was surrounded by happy patients.” Better
treatments are ones that lead to better patients however measured.
Finally, Ripudaman Singh’s chapter, “Active Parents, Parental Activism:
The Adipose Stem Cell In-Vitro Lab Study,” and Lola and Shannon
Davis’ chapter, “Accidental Events: Regenerative Medicine, Quadriplegia
and Life’s Journey,” take us to the heart of the work done by patients and
their parent activists to bring treatments in to being in ways that promote
good science and lead to better patients. Singh, his wife, and son all
worked tirelessly with their fellow families to improve their children’s
conditions of life in a country where “nobody cares,” least of all the Indian
Medical Council, which took the dismissive attitude that “stem cells are
just placebos.” The “parents did most of the research and determined the
protocols, such as how many cells we wanted and the number of infu-
sions,” and, at the very least, knowledgeably and actively bought “time
until something better came along.” In their chapter, Shannon and Lola
x Foreword: Good Science, Better Patients
Davis emphasize the progress made through being a patient of Dr. Shroff
when nothing else had worked. Shannon’s mother describes the range of
incremental improvements in function and quality of life, rather than
total cure, offered by the treatments, and sums it up by noting that “her
life has become as normal as it can be.” Shannon herself underlines the
“rigorous medical attention to treatment protocol,” as a “deciding factor”
in traveling to India for treatment, and also sets the bottom line in terms
of efficacy of the treatment in the absence of alternatives, noting that
“there is no other place in the world to help me.”
Overall, Global Perspectives on Stem Cell Technologies was a pleasure to
read and learn from. It resonated deeply with my own work, while also tak-
ing me much beyond. Good stem cell science and regenerative medicine
has much in common around the world, but also crucially differs according
to local political and ethical and scientific repertoires, economic circum-
stances, governance and regulation or the lack thereof, and the institutional
structure and funding of science. Narratives of moral and epistemological
goodness are produced in and in turn produce scientific and biomedical
innovation. Market failures and a completely new understanding of the
biological are leading to innovation stretching from clinical trials to patient
activism. Cures and care promise, eventually, to be the better for it.
Chancellor’s Professor, UC Berkeley; Charis Thompson

Professor, LSE.
June 2017
Notes
1. Charis Thompson, 2013. Good Science: The Ethical Choreography of Stem
Cell Research. MIT Press.
2. See Nature 538, 371, 2016, Science FARE http://www.nature.com/
nature/journal/v538/n7625/full/538317b.html
3. See, for example, these founding works: Steven Epstein, 1998. Impure
Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. University of
California Press, and Rayna Rapp, 1987. Moral Pioneers: Women, Men
and Fetuses on a Frontier of Reproductive Technology. Women Health
1987;13(1–2):101–116.
Contents
Stem Cell Intersections: Perspectives and Experiences 1

Aditya Bharadwaj
Part I Regenerating Ethics 25
omewhere Over the Rainbow, Cells Do Fly 27

S
Sarah Franklin
I ntersections of Technological and Regulatory Zones

in Regenerative Medicine 51
Linda F. Hogle
taging Scientific Selves and Pluripotent Cells in

S
South Korea and Japan 85
Marcie Middlebrooks and Hazuki Shimono
xi
xii Contents
Part II Therapeutic Horizons 115
stablishment and Use of Injectable Human Embryonic

E
Stem Cells for Clinical Application 117
Geeta Shroff
re-blastomeric Regeneration: German Patients Encounter

P
Human Embryonic Stem Cells in India 153
Petra Hopf-Seidel
Part III Patient Positions 171
ctive Parents, Parental Activism: The Adipose Stem

A
Cell In Vitro Lab Study 173
Ripudaman Singh
ccidental Events: Regenerative Medicine, Quadriplegia,

A
and Life’s Journey 183
Lola Davis and Shannon Davis
iocrossing Heterotopia: Revisiting Contemporary

B
Stem Cell Research and Therapy in India 195
Nayantara Sheoran Appleton and Aditya Bharadwaj
Afterword 215
Marcia C. Inhorn
Index 223
List of Figures
Chapter 5
Fig. 1 Trachtography 125
Fig. 2 Patient 1 after treatment 126
Fig. 3 Tractography images of Patient 2 before and after treatment 128
Fig. 4 Treatment plan for Spinal Cord Injury 132
Fig. 5 Overall change in American Spinal Injury Association
(ASIA) scale at the end of treatment phase 1 and 2 136
Fig. 6 Tractographic images of a SCI patient before and after
hESC therapy using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 142
Fig. 7 Risks associated with epidural and caudal route of
administration143
xiii
List of Tables
Chapter 5
Table 1 Change in American Spinal Injury Association scales
of patients (overall) from admission to discharge at
the end of each treatment period 134
Table 2 Change from baseline to last period in total American
Spinal Injury Association scores by extent and level of injury 135
Table 3 Change in American Spinal Injury Association scales of
patients (gender wise) from admission to discharge at the
end of each treatment period 137
Table 4 Adverse events observed during each treatment period
(safety population) 138
xv
Stem Cell Intersections: Perspectives
and Experiences
Aditya Bharadwaj
Introduction
Global Perspectives on Stem Cell Technologies is an exploration of social sci-
ence, patient, and biomedical perspectives on stem cell technologies. This
unique engagement takes as its starting point a humble cell lying on an
intersection of ideas as diverse and interlaced as life, knowledge, com-
merce, governance, and ethics. While natural sciences have focused on
the bio-anatomy and unique therapeutic promise of stem cells, social sci-
ence disciplines such as anthropology and sociology in large part endeavor
to reveal the ‘cultural contours of interlocked sociotechnical assemblages
framing stem cell isolation, generation and application’ (Bharadwaj 2012,
p. 304). These are shown to range from scientific production, political
contestations, and economic calculations to ethical variations, religious
objections, and social mobilization around the globe (ibid.). These com-
plex processes and relationships have not only amassed around the scien-
A. Bharadwaj (*)
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Graduate Institute
of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland
© The Author(s) 2018 1

A. Bharadwaj (ed.), Global Perspectives on Stem Cell Technologies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63787-7_1
2 A. Bharadwaj
tific possibility of purging the cellular form of therapeutic promise but

also increased levels of promissory hope and indorsed hype in the cellular
form.
This book is an engagement with an emerging but vital area of science
spanning geopolitical, socio-economic, and techno-scientific as well as
bioethical dimensions. The endeavor is to deepen our understanding of
stem cell entities and the concerns, hopes, and aspirations that shape
them and make them imaginable as viable therapeutic entities. ‘Several
key intersections between individual, group, and institutional relation-
ships have become central to locating and debating the production of
stem cells’ (Bharadwaj 2012, p. 306). Gradually, stem cells are emerging
as biogenetic objects bestriding intersections as diverse as ethical/unethi-
cal, science/commerce, religious morality/secular governance, somatic/
embryonic through to utopian hope and dystopian despair. There is,
however, a paradox at the core of stem cell intersectionality: stem cells can
be imagined and materially deciphered across a variety of sites. That is,
the culturally ascribed identity of stem cells acquires value precisely
because stem cells can be imagined as ‘both like and not like human
beings’ (Squier 2004, p. 4). It is on the precise intersection of shifting
individual, group, and institutional relationships that stem cells continu-
ally renew to mean different things and embody different moral, ethical,
economic, and therapeutic values.
The millennial turn saw the rise of the biotechnology of stem cells in
nations of the ‘South’ such as India and beyond. The rapid globalization
of stem cell research and clinical application is producing an uneven
landscape of opportunity to research, regulate, promote, and debate the
cellular form. These moves are also rapidly problematizing long-
established oppositions of global North/South, First/Third worlds, devel-
oped/developing economies, and Western/Eastern cultures (Bharadwaj
2009; Bharadwaj and Glasner 2009). What is to count as local and global
is rapidly dislocating. In large part, this also means that the twentieth-
century-development discourse that privileged the unidirectional flow of
knowledge from the ‘global’ North/developed to the ‘local’ South/devel-
oping is disintegrating. As long argued, this geopolitical worldview is
now both an untenable orthodoxy and an unsustainable project (ibid.). It
is in this world order in which twentieth-century geopolitical stability is
rapidly shifting and intersecting in ways previously unimaginable that

stem cells have begun to proliferate and mutate to body forth culture-
specific responses to certain core and contested arenas.
The book addresses three overarching arenas of concern: (1) regenerat-
ing the very notion of regulation and ethics, (2) emerging therapeutic
horizons, and (3) patient positions. In large part, these concerns have
framed the research focus and lived experience of the authors in this
book. These concerns are continually ‘co-produced’, to use Sheila
Jasanoff’s apt phrasing, to mean different things in different global con-
texts. For example, as the accounts in this volume show, while there is
emerging evidence of growing social and regulatory concerns around
stem cell research and clinical interventions from the United States, the
United Kingdom, and Japan, stem cell therapies have become firmly
embedded as therapeutic practice in global locales like India. Similarly, in
some parts of the world, regulatory and ethical concerns are focused pre-
dominantly on the clinical manipulation of the embryonic form and
sourcing of reproductive gametes for research (Sperling 2013). In some
other global locales, the impact of invasive extraction practices to procure
such biogenetic tissues and exploitation of vulnerable populations is
being framed as a major area of concern (Waldby and Cooper 2010). The
global political economy of such biotechnological developments along
with the commercial exploitation of future therapeutic possibilities is also
causing alarm and mobilization. While the origins and ethical objections
to using embryos for stem cell research can be traced back to the religious
domain in specific Euro-American formations (Bharadwaj 2009), the
global variability notwithstanding, creation of human embryos for fertil-
ity treatments and stem cell research alike have become core bioethical
subjects as ethical concerns and, to borrow from Sarah Franklin’s insight-
ful analysis, are ‘built into’ new life forms (2003, 2013). The question of
ethics covers a spectrum of issues ranging from scandals involving unethi-
cal stem cell research (chapter ‘Staging Scientific Selves and Pluripotent
Cells in South Korea and Japan’) to what Clare Williams and her col-
leagues have shown to be ‘ethical boundary work’ (Wainwright et al.
2006) within stem cell laboratories and clinical application of stem cells
in specific global locales to the ethics of gamete and embryo sourcing for
research through stem cells.
4 A. Bharadwaj
The emerging treatment modalities in a globalized research and thera-

peutic landscape are similarly mired and caught up in the crude but read-
ily available intersection between good and bad science (Bharadwaj
2015). The conversation this book seeks to instigate significantly involves
one notable example of an emerging embryonic stem cell treatment
modality in India (see chapters ‘Establishment and Use of Injectable
Human Embryonic Stem Cells for Clinical Application’, ‘Pre-blastomeric
regeneration: German patients encounter human embryonic stem cells in
India’, and ‘Accidental Events: Regenerative Medicine, Quadriplegia and
Life’s Journey’). In large part, the intent is to let the voices of those most
intimately involved in this breakthrough—from the clinician scientist
and author of this unique breakthrough to international interlocutors
ranging from physicians to patients embodying the cellular therapy—put
forward their perspectives. For too long, these voices have been marginal-
ized in bioscience and social science literature as fringe, guileful, or gull-
ible (cf. Bharadwaj 2013a, b, c, 2015). However, as decade-long
anthropological analysis has shown that to the purveyors and surveyors of
normative ‘good science’, clinical breakthroughs in India may seem prob-
lematic because they perceive human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) to be
digressing from what is often seen as adjudicated and consensible science
(Bharadwaj 2013a). Nonetheless, hESC interpolations achieved in the
Indian clinic amply illustrate ways in which the slow-paced but high-
stakes, capital-saturated, Euro-American forays into stem cell research
produce structural conditions that allow the tropic notion of ‘bad name
science’ to solidify on the intersection of states, capital, and science (see
Bharadwaj 2015). However, we must remain alert and not lapse into a
just as radially available and tempting essentialism that could recast the
critique of hESC in India, for example, as mere evidence of a ‘West versus
the rest’ mindset. Rather, it seems the politics of life and science (in that
order) paint a more complicated portraiture that takes as their rhetoric of
persuasion the notion ‘first in the West then elsewhere’ (see Chakrabarty
2000, p. 6). Let us also be clear that the emerging global intersection of
state, science, and capital is bringing together a collation of strange bed-
fellows. For instance, the emerging regulatory guidelines in India have
more in common with the standardized regulatory norms long fantasti-
cally fantasized in the Euro-American landscape as establishing a global
gold standard in which biogenetic tissue could become normalized as

intellectual property, commercial transaction, standardized therapeutic
protocol, and normative bioethical compliance. Put another way, these
imagined ‘tracks’ are fast becoming essential for the smooth shuttling of
capital-fueled biotechnological locomotion. The emerging binary
between the hESCs and somatic cells in Indian regulatory thinking is a
fine reflection of this purportedly globally standardized view on human
embryonic source of stem cell as inherently unethical, dangerous (cancer-
ous), and difficult to regulate (chapter ‘Biocrossing Heterotopia:
Revisiting Contemporary Stem Cell Research and Therapy in India’). It
seems the very notion of regulation is in a double bind: how to regulate
embryonic stem cell proliferation in petri dishes and across the globe and
how to regulate (and not proliferate) ethical, moral, and political issues.
Yet, hESCs are proliferating in India and attracting patients from around
the globe (see chapters ‘Pre-blastomeric regeneration: German patients
encounter human embryonic stem cells in India’ and ‘Accidental Events:
Regenerative Medicine, Quadriplegia and Life’s Journey’). The so-called
regulatory vacuum, as some argue (Sleeboom-Faulkner and Patra 2008),
is purportedly allowing this proliferation to go unchecked. The reason
this collection includes the Indian hESC breakthrough prominently is
because the Indian case is quite possibly the only contemporary example
in the world where hESCs are being used clinically with accumulating
patient data and testimonies that render problematic the spectral fears
of dangerous proliferating potential of embryonic cellular form
(Widschwendter et al. 2006).
Against this backdrop, the growing movement of people from around
the world in search of stem cell therapies becomes yet another emerging
arena of concern. Stem cell tourism, as global therapeutic travel is fre-
quently euphemized, has expanded to include India as a major hub. The
so-called stem cell tourists are part of the conversation this book seeks to
set in motion, and only their voices can best complicate the problematic
nature of the ‘tourism’ euphemism. It would be erroneous to view this as
a mere experimental moment in charting the rise of an innovative bio-
technology. Instead, this book’s main orientation is a belief that no matter
how noble our intentions as social science researchers, we cannot truly
give voices to people we ‘study’ be they scientists, clinicians, or patients.
6 A. Bharadwaj
Instead we can merely create conditions for voices to emerge. Taken

together, these developments turn stem cells into a ‘spectacle ripe for …
analysis’ (Hogle 2005).
Stem Cell Theory Machine

Stem cell intersections offer a unique opportunity to revisit Galison
(2003) and Helmreich’s (2011) notion of the ‘theory machine’ (also see
Bharadwaj 2012), that is, ‘an object in the world that stimulates a theo-
retical formulation’ (Helmreich 2011, p. 132). Helmreich explains that
for Galison, ‘networks of electrocoordinated clocks in turn-of-the-
twentieth-century European railway stations aided Einstein’s thinking
about simultaneity’. Similarly, ‘animal husbandry provided a theory
machine for Darwin’ (ibid.). Retooling Galison, Helmreich focuses on
theory as neither fixed above the empirical nor deriving from it in any
straightforward sense but rather as crossing the empirical transversely
(also see Helmreich 2009, p. 23–25). Thus argued, theory becomes at
once an abstraction and an object in the world. In Helmreich’s formula-
tion, ‘theories constantly cut across and complicate our paths as we navi-
gate forward in the “real world”’ (Helmreich 2011, p. 135).
Manifestly a humble stem cell is a theory machine par excellence. As a
quintessential ‘emergent form of life’ (Fischer 2003), a stem cell is at once
constricted in the specific context of its cultural medium and dispersed as
a ‘global biological’ entity (Franklin 2005). The theory machine potential
of a stem cell is thoroughly realized in its cultural capacity to manifest as
the progenitor idea that transforms the notion of ‘life’ as not only emer-
gent but also simultaneously regenerating. It is the regenerating potential
of stem cells, both therapeutically and the social, economic, political
regeneration such therapeutic promise sets in motion that further com-
plicates the symbiotic and semiotic emergence of a vital concept: life.
As an abstraction and a real object, a stem cell is rapidly becoming vital
to the vitality of the emerging notion of life as regenerative and its evolv-
ing institutional and structural framing in the new century. One can
argue that the stem cell theory machine crosses sharply athwart the
empirical terrain of life. This produces complications. In other words,
stem cells are abstractions with real-life consequences. The athwart move-
ment of cells through everyday lived complexities that imbricate science
and suffering, as well as regulatory necessities and ethical contingencies,
can be seen tropically instantiating a ‘biocrossing’ (Bharadwaj 2008). As
a conceptual trope, the notion of biocrossing alerts us to ‘crossings’
achieved through the twin processes of extraction and insertion of bioge-
netic substance across multiple terrains ranging from geopolitical borders
to areas between biology and machine, governance and ethical dilemmas,
everyday suffering, and religious as well as secularized morality (ibid.). A
crucially important way to examine these complexities is to become
attentive to ways in which biocrossings traverse the heterotopic spaces in
which utopian promise and dystopian angst are reflected and refracted
(see Foucault 1986; chapter ‘Biocrossing Heterotopia: Revisiting
Contemporary Stem Cell Research and Therapy in India’, this volume).
These reflected sites produce counter-sites within cultures that allow life
to assert its vitality within a set of circumstances and material conditions
that run counter to individual or shared ideas about life. The theory
machine of stem cells is uniquely placed to operate in and as heterotopias:
manifest entities and discursive sites suffused with real and imagined,
utopic, and dystopic alterations made evident as ‘biocrossing gain trac-
tion between the biogenetic, technoscientific, socioeconomic, and geo-
political landscapes of possibilities’ (ibid.). To be clear, heterotopias are
not negative spaces per se but rather multiple concrete and discursive
counter-spaces that can be experienced. While Foucault neglected to
unpack the notion of heterotopia in any meaningful detail, a close read-
ing of his limited musings on the topic suggests that the notion of hetero-
topia allows life to unfold and accumulate temporally and spatially even
in the face of structural conditions seemingly not conducive to nor suf-
ficient for life. For example, in Foucault’s formulation, both prison and
museum would typify a heterotopia. While the latter would accumulate
time and space indefinitely, the former could become transitory surveyed
time and panoptic space. In a similar vein, the temporal and spatial vital-
ity inhered in the cellular form and the vital force of human life itself
become equally heterotopic. As counter-spaces, heterotopias contain the
potential to operationalize life and enable life to willfully accumulate or
dissipate by ‘juxtaposing in a single real place several spaces, several sites
8 A. Bharadwaj
that are in themselves incompatible’ (Foucault 1986, p. 25). These spaces

can range from the human corporeal form, stem cells ensconced in a petri
dish, hospitals, and laboratories to conference halls, classrooms, and
national parliaments promoting or neglecting panoptic ethicality through
to international stock markets and pharmaceutical corporate entities.
These sites, incompatible in scale, temporality, and power, are impor-
tantly reflected and rendered vibrant as they interact and counteract over
time and space to produce dynamic shifting social arrangements that
ironically sustain and curtail stem cells. Foucault reminds us that ‘the
heterotopic site is not freely accessible like a public place’ (1986, p. 26).
The entry into a heterotopia is either compulsorily overseen (e.g., bar-
racks or a prison) or via rites and purifications. This unique heterotopic
character isolates as well as renders accessible a counter-site. The purifica-
tion of stem cells as ethical objects and shards of hermetically isolated and
panoptically surveyed biogenetic tissue (imprisoned in a laboratory) fur-
ther behooves us to inspect the open and closed character of stem cell
heterotopia.
The ethical space framing stem cells has a discursive presence. However,
the theory machine of stem cells concertizes the discursive and specializes
it to hone and ‘home in’ on competing social orderings that not only
harden to become canonical practices and pronouncements but also end
up subordinating ethical practices that materialize in response to mun-
dane encounters with life and living. The ordering of good and bad sci-
ence, however, makes the moral binary factitious. In Thompson’s
brilliantly insightful account of ethical choreography surrounding stem
cell science, she shows that a truly good science with ethics would do
more than conceive best scientific and ethical practices as mere instru-
ments for overcoming ethical barriers to research (or for that matter clini-
cal application). Instead Thompson eloquently argues that:
… dissent and assent and other interests in relation to fields of science

should be solicited, not shut down by scientists and ethicists and adminis-
trators; that criticism of science should open up, rather than shutting down
avenues of research; that the process and procedures of ethical inquiry
should be honored; and that multiple forums for ethical deliberation
should be developed, recognized, and made integral to robust science.
(2013, p. 64–65)
Perhaps it is time to embrace and advocate the open-ended nature of

ethical deliberations, broadly participatory and somewhat democratic, as
emerging cellular potential gets realized and theorized around the globe.
The alternative and slightly closed and inward-looking bioethical farming
merely bureaucratizes ethics to mean something altogether specific. The
true answer is perhaps to be (re)searched on the intersection of these
competing ethicalities. The theory machine potential of stem cell and its
ethical pluripotency is uniquely placed to achieve and propagate this
integration.
Regulating Pluripotency
The global stem cell landscape can be imagined as inherently pluripotent.
This inherent pluripotency gives rise to much more than vibrant cellular
forms—that is, the science and emerging political economy of stem cell
technologies around the globe are producing distinct culture-specific
responses. It is as if by virtue of differentiating in divergent cross-cultural
mediums, stem cell science has become an arena in need of robust stan-
dardized regulation. Yet, the notion of regulation remains a slippery con-
cept in much of the social science scholarship and state response to stem
cells these accounts focus on as their empirical base. There is an unwitting
assumption that greater regulation would somehow rein in the euphemis-
tic pluripotency from assuming dangerous proportions (Salter 2008;
Patra and Sleeboom-Faulkner 2009).
Sheila Jasanoff shows that ‘biotechnology politics and policy are situ-
ated at the intersection of two profoundly destabilizing changes in the
way we view the world: one cognitive, the other political’ (2005, p. 13).
Science has historically maintained its legitimacy by cultivating a careful
distance from the politics (Jasanoff 2005, p. 6). She argues that as state-
science relations become more openly instrumental, we can reasonably
wonder whether science will lose its ability to serve either state or society
as a source of impartial critical authority (p. 6). In other words, Jasanoff
(1990, 2004, 2005) equips us to ask how inventions, both scientific and
social, relate to public and private actors in (predominantly democratic)
nations and assist in the production of new phenomena through their
10 A. Bharadwaj
support for biotechnology and how they reassure themselves and others
about the safety of the resulting changes—or fail to do so (2005, p. 6).
Broadly speaking, the notion of ‘pluripotent stem cell’ encapsulates this
troublesome complexity. The issue of unregulated invention and science
with its normative inversion—compliant and adjudicated science—cir-
cumscribed by state-science consensus in public and private realms pro-
duces a shared sense of belonging to an epistemological and regulatory
technology. The technoscientific act of honing cells co-produces (Jasanoff
2004) the equally complex task of honing the technoscientific procedure
itself. Similarly, the act of reassuring selves and others becomes a mani-
festly political act of forging a consensual polity of instrumental and ethi-
cal action. Moves to standardize and universalize ethical and
epistemological procedures are intimately connected to such impulses
interested in honing the pluripotent potential of stem cells.
Regulating the social and scientific pluripotency in a globalized
research and therapeutic system is a complex task. In the late twentieth
and early twenty-first centuries, these moves have birthed the triumvirate
of state-science-capital. Increasingly, this troika works to contain, curtail,
and cultivate zones of consensible epistemology, shared ethicality, and
commercial viability (see Bharadwaj 2013a)—as if anything proliferating
outside this consensible vision of a globalized stem cell terrain becomes,
like stem cells themselves, peripherally dangerous. The failure to coax
cells, science, and society into an orderly development becomes a failure
to foresee and prevent a malignant disruption. However, it would be
erroneous to assume that some monopolistic state-science machine of
global domination is circumscribing stem cells from proliferating ‘unreg-
ulated’ in nation-states and petri dishes. On the contrary, it is becoming
increasingly difficult and complex to determine how democratic nations
function and respond in the context of the emerging global politics of
science and technology around stem cells. For example, Sperling’s rich
ethnography on the bioethics debate in Germany offers a peek into the
established presence of a pronounced sense of ‘German’ and ‘un-German’
modes of doing stem cell research (Sperling 2013). The boundaries
around German research at best remain ambiguous even as bioethicality
posits research inside and outside Germany by German scientists or
research on stem cell lines imported rather than indigenously developed
as the threshold for precarious border [bio]crossing of the ethical terrain.

The Euro-American terrain is internally diverse and distinct. The national
cultures of stem cell research and regulation do depart on occasion sig-
nificantly. However, regulatory protocols and bioethical thinking in the
Euro-American formations, differences, and digressions notwithstanding
share a distinct philosophical and ideological provenance. While these
manifest differently in different nation-states, for example, at the level of
the European Union as opposed to individual member states, they do
pose problems, as they travel globally. In India alone one finds that while
stem cell scientists effortlessly incorporate Western biomedical training
and biotechnological developments into their indigenous stem cell tool
kits, they do struggle to make sense of normative injunctions around eth-
ics and new regulatory concerns around human embryonic forms. The
resounding pushback observed for over a decade can simply be para-
phrased to read that the human embryonic form is neither a religious nor
a moral nor ethical ‘hot potato’ in India. Yet, the moves by the Indian
state to problematize the destruction of an embryo as an ethical concern,
the creation of hESC lines as inherently perilous, and the regulation of
such embryonic entities as exceedingly complex reflect the consensus in
the Euro-American formations on the subject. More important, the
emerging regulatory concern of the Indian state is seeking to transform
the stem cell terrain in India by stemming the therapeutic viability of the
pluripotent embryonic cell while proactively coaxing the proliferation of
autologous cellular research and therapies (see chapter ‘biocrossing
Heterotopia: Revisiting Contemporary Stem Cell Research and Therapy
in India’). Manifestly, it is no surprise that the emerging stem cell nations
like India are seeking to create global reach and access by co-opting and
building into the stem cell entities ethical, moral, and regulatory thresh-
olds of their probable lay and professional consumers and future markets
(see Bharadwaj 2009). The triumvirate of state-science-capital necessi-
tates that political regulation, scientific consensus, and economic calcula-
tion seamlessly align if nascent entities like stem cells are to become viable
as ethical, therapeutic, and commercial objects. To read these emerging
socio-political complexities as mere standardized regulatory and bioethi-
cal practices or in some unique sense hallmark good science would be
hugely one dimensional.
12 A. Bharadwaj
Policy and regulatory thinking that assumes simplistic divisions such

as good/bad and ethical/unethical often miss the nuanced complexities
routinely imploding such binaries. If we subject prefixes such as ‘good’
and ‘bad’, usually appended to an idea of science, to critical scrutiny, we
soon discover that these prefixes curiously circulate and mutate as they
converse with their immediate and distant ‘environments’ and in so doing
attach and detach from the very idea of ‘science’. Take, for example, the
controversy surrounding Proposition 71 of 2004 (or the California Stem
Cell Research and Cures Act), a law enacted by California voters to sup-
port stem cell research, most notably embryonic stem cell research, in the
state. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) became
the state agency brought into existence by the passage of Proposition 71.
Funded by state bond funds and backed by taxpayers to the tune of three
billion over ten years, the CIRM became a unique holding space for
hype/hope, promise/despair, risk/reward, and intractable diseases/prom-
issory cures (Bharadwaj 2015, p. 4). However, the promissory value of
the CIRM was somewhat tarnished when local media began highlighting
its ‘insular’ and ‘insider-like’ way of doing business (Los Angeles Times
2014). The main bone of contention was the CIRM’s former president’s
unethical practices and the subsequent CIRM-sponsored cover-up. From
its very inception, the CIRM was to be the crucible of good science, and
its remit was to find cures for humankind’s worst afflictions. This ‘procu-
rial’ remit, to use Charis Thompson’s felicitous framing, was the defining
feature of the CIRM’s rapid and unprecedented rise. However, the ‘pro-
cure’ rhetoric of ‘good science’ that enabled the CIRM to come into exis-
tence in the first place paradoxically bore fruit in distant India. The fact
of stem cell therapies in India can achieve and deliver results that elude
good science elsewhere remains an enduring irony. This is because the
critique often encountered in the Indian stem cell terrain has in large part
focused on imagined violations of an epistemic kind: no animal models
or clinical trials and/or no standardized ethical choreography prefiguring
good scientific performativity. In this respect, following Shroff’s work
(chapter ‘Establishment and Use of Injectable Human Embryonic Stem
Cells for Clinical Application’) is illuminating in one crucial respect: it
lays bare the pursuit of ‘local good’ circumscribed by contingent ethics
produced in relation to sensibilities populating the everyday engagement
with life (see Das 2015). For instance, in all my interactions with Geeta
Shroff, I have found her to see placebo-controlled trials as unethical since
stem cells at her clinic are used to treat only terminal and incurable
conditions:
We never opted for a clinical trail because we are against giving placebos.
The patient is the control because there is chronicity, and it is not fair to
treat a patient with placebos especially if a motor-neuron-disease patient is
coming to you who is going down every day. The institutional ethics com-
mittee took this decision a very long time ago that there will be no placebo,
as it is against our ethics; we can’t stand back and watch a motor-neuron-
disease patient rapidly worsen and die. It is against our ethics. (Bharadwaj
2015, p. 13)
How do we then accommodate this call for localized ethical contin-

gency in the grand narrative of bioethics? In the register of everyday
ethics that Veena Das (2015) has brilliantly illuminated through her
work, the contingency and frailty of the human condition and its
unpredictable social trajectory render untenable a scientific and bio-
ethical commitment to standardized epistemic choreography. However,
procedures and processes are changing. As Hogle shows within the pur-
view of the Twenty-First-Century Cures Act in the United States, the
law is instructing the FDA in no uncertain terms to use observational
data in the evaluation of drugs, biologics, and devices. This data, Hogle
explains, could come, in addition to other sources, from case histories
and patient narratives about their own experience (chapter ‘Ethical
Ambiguities: Emerging Models of Donor–Researcher Relations in the
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells’). While these moves stop far short of a
watershed moment in eliciting evidence, newer and older notions of
appropriate evidence are likely to become more hybrid (ibid.).
Nevertheless, these developments can only give hope. For now, it seems,
the mode of building and doing ‘good science’ as envisioned by
Thompson seems a step closer to realization.
On the question of regulation, certain expedient logics appear to
underscore the rise of science policy and governance around the globe
today. This expediency, I think, is an unwitting corollary (and on rare
14 A. Bharadwaj
occasions a willful manifestation) of processes that both operate and are

operationalized as the global circulation of intellectual and monetary
capital gain traction. We need to pay particular attention to such an
emergence within the policy landscape, national and regional differences
notwithstanding. We should also remain somewhat ambivalent in the
face of two popular and explicit suggestions embedded in the existing
social science literature on stem cells that see robust governance of stem
cells predicated on common acceptable principles and mechanisms as
facilitating good scientific practice and international collaborations and
the standardization and globalization of ethical concerns. In my view one
of these aims, international collaborations encouraging good scientific
practice, is often unattainable given the woeful lack of a level global play-
ing field; the other, the standardization of ethical concerns, is undesir-
able. This is because in order to understand science policy and regulation,
we also need to understand how power structures set definite limits to
individual and collective negotiating capacities. The resulting negotiating
choreography produces seemingly new norms, but these reassert the
hegemonic view that either seeks to co-opt the emerging new in its own
image or reject it altogether, a sense of ‘our way or the highway’.
The foregoing policy, scientific, ethical, and regulatory concerns often
eclipse one important stakeholder in the global stem cell landscape:
patients suffering from chronic and degenerative medical conditions.
Ironically, the manifesto of ‘good science’ that Thompson troubles and
expands to include a diverse pool of concerns and ethicalities takes as its
point of departure a strong ‘pro-cure’ stance as the main justification for
intensified research, enhanced funding, and procuring access to biogene-
tic tissue. The affect saturated call for this intensification takes human
suffering and progressive and degenerative afflictions as the only humane
justification for developing and delivering therapy-grade stem cell tech-
nologies. The suffering patient thus co-opted in the triumvirate circuit of
state-science-capital paradoxically serves to obfuscate the troika at the
cost of her own obfuscation. The suffering patient and her suffering is
deferred, disappeared, and dispersed into a promissory therapeutic future.
The certainty of her suffering and eventual end in the present assumes a
totemic quality: a sacrifice that guarantees promised future returns on the
investment elicited in her name from state, science, and capital.
I have had the rare privilege of documenting and following biogra-

phies of stem cell treatment seekers for nearly a decade. I am delighted
that rather than represent them, some of these inspirational pioneers will
represent themselves and their experiences in the pages of this book. As
noted previously, it is my firm belief that no matter how noble our inten-
tion as researchers we cannot truly give voices to people. Instead we can
merely create conditions for voices to be heard.
Through the course of my research, I have encountered numerous
patients reporting reversals in their rapidly worsening conditions post-
stem cell interpolations and voicing deep frustrations on being seen as
either psychosomatic or responding to mere placebos (Bharadwaj 2013b).
For example, many patients had to contend with well-meaning but
unsupportive biomedical opinions advising against stem cell treatments
in India. Patients were continually asked to wait for therapeutic alterna-
tives to emerge within their home countries in Europe or the United
States. The well-meaning tropic construct of desperate gullible dupe in
need of protection from a guileful maverick often silenced the enduring
frustration patients articulated. To these intrepid treatment seekers, the
ethical stance of principled good science seemed callous and inhuman. As
one treatment seeker told me, ‘They [purveyors of bioethically settled
stem cell science] appear to be saying we rather you die than try’. In a
similar vein, a young man told Thompson (2013) he would travel abroad
for stem cell treatments if he could. He couldn’t understand why there
were concerted efforts to demonize countries offering treatments even if
those interventions were largely experimental. To the young man, the
demonized experimental nature of stem cell treatment modality abroad
was more desirable than dying waiting for the FDA in the United States
(Thompson 2013, p. 16).
It appears the figure of an independent, autonomous, free, rational,
and calculating subject—routinely resurrected in ethically adjudicated
consent procedures—is rendered problematic, as a decision to seek stem
cell treatments around the globe cannot be captured under the sign of a
clinical trial or some form of normative treatment seeking. It appears
outside the state-science-capital circuit; autonomy, consent, and choice
add up to mean something rather specific—gullibility and desperation.
Alternatives to what I am calling the triumvirate-sponsored biomedical
16 A. Bharadwaj
science are rendered untenable. And yet therapeutic migrations from over
50 countries to India have continued to seek out stem cell treatments for
over a decade (chapters ‘Establishment and Use of Injectable Human
Embryonic Stem Cells for Clinical Application’, ‘Pre-blastomeric regen-
eration: German patients encounter human embryonic stem cells in
India’, and ‘Accidental Events: Regenerative Medicine, Quadriplegia and
Life’s Journey’).
In highlighting the complex pieces making up the pattern of global
stem cell initiatives, this book is seeking to initiate and invite conversa-
tion. The chapters that follow might offer a template for future engage-
ment and forays into the cellular terrain populated by multidisciplinary
stakeholders.
The Book
This book aims to instigate conversation. In so doing we need to remain
alert and open to asking what kinds of science, politics, and ethicality are
at stake as stem cell science and therapies throw roots around the globe.
This will entail crossing disciplinary, ethical, geopolitical, and cultural
borders. The chapters that follow offer remarkable insights into ground-
breaking research from across disciplines. These perspectives reinforce a
call for methodological immersion that is longitudinal, sustained, and
multi-sited in order to reveal everyday complexities at the heart of these
emerging stem cell challenges around the globe.
The chapters that follow offer illustrations into the emerging life of
stem cell technologies in an interconnected world. These examples are
unique, and given the prevailing contentious bioethical framing of stem
cell entities, some of these illustrations may even be perceived as contro-
versial. One of the primary aims of this collection is to jolt us out of our
epistemic comfort zones and facilitate a dialogue on a disciplinary and
experiential intersection. As noted previously, the book is held together
by three distinct and yet connected thematic sets.
The first major thematic group is concerned with the notion of regen-
erating regulation and ethics. Franklin (chapter ‘Somewhere Over the
Rainbow, Cells Do Fly’), Hogle (chapter ‘Ethical Ambiguities: Emerging
Models of Donor–Researcher Relations in the Induced Pluripotent Stem

Cells’), and Middlebrooks and Shimono (chapter ‘Staging Scientific
Selves and Pluripotent Cells in South Korea and Japan’) illustrate the
regulatory and ethical precarities as well as glimpses of emerging new
stability in vastly different contexts in the United Kingdom, the United
States, South Korea, and Japan.
Franklin argues that cell therapy and regenerative medicine are tied
to translational ambitions seeking to deliver improved healthcare. These
moves often manifest as ‘pipeline models’ of delivery and congregate
around the discourse of ‘impact’. Franklin shows that the pipeline
idiom is ‘inadequate to encompass the iterative, loping, and often cir-
cuitous realities of “translating” knowledge into products and applica-
tions’. Drawing on longitudinal ethnographic immersion and proactive
conversations with cell-therapy advocates and stem cell researchers, she
shows how, when discussions of impact are examined alongside human-
ities scholars, many common themes begin to emerge. Franklin calls for
a move away from linear models of progress to incorporate ‘churn’, ‘cir-
cularity’, and ‘conversations’ as the 3Cs in the co-produced future of
science and social science. In so arguing, she maps out the various
‘intersections’ between social and basic science. Franklin expertly trou-
bles the irony underscoring ‘promotional’ and ‘aspirational’ idioms
impeding ‘the very flows they are allegedly designed to accelerate’. She
argues that good solutions require a much more circular process. In the
final analysis, she calls for better models than ‘pipelines’ and ‘impact’ to
help appreciate the complexity of technological change. Following
Franklin, we can argue that the current-event horizon of stem cell sci-
ence is ironically birthing variegated rainbows. And perhaps if we fly
high enough over the rainbow, a globalized consensus on how to cul-
ture, restrict, and circulate stem cell biogenetic entities might become
realizable.
Hogle delves into the world of stem cell and regenerative-medicine
governance. She examines the contemporary debates over regenerative-
medicine implementation and governance in the context of emerging
thinking on producing evidence in contemporary biosciences and
medicine. She persuasively argues that stem cell and regenerative-medi-
cine governance has largely been circumscribed by technological zones
18 A. Bharadwaj
and limited to: what is or is not allowed by regulatory authorities in

specific locales, what is or is not an ethical therapeutic application, and
the variances across societies. She shows how this approach largely ignores
intersections with economic, political, and other kinds of technological
zones. Hogle makes a ground-breaking intervention by problematizing
the category of evidence itself. She shows how stem cells upset stable
categories set forth by evidence-based medicine and policy because of
their ‘complexity and recalcitrance to existing ways of measuring
evidence’.
Hogle offers a fascinating insight into the current state of flux where
the following are ongoing: a shift toward patient-generated data and
patient entitlements to choose experimental treatments; a push to speed
up product approvals circumscribed by differing attitudes toward risk
and patients’ roles in decision-making; an uptake of new techniques such
as Big Data analytics and predictive computation that aid economic cal-
culations for systems as a whole well beyond the production of data for
specific innovations; and actions built on platforms serving broader polit-
ical and economic purposes. In this climate of change she rightly impels
us to ask what work we are expecting evidence to do in the ethically
ambiguous stem cell terrain.
Middlebrooks and Hazuki explore how prominent Japanese and South
Korean scientists Obokata Haruko’s and Hwang Woo-suk’s public perso-
nas and self-presentations produced the credibility of their stem cell
research narratives. The chapter offers a gripping account of ways in
which extensive media coverage of both scientists’ stem cell successes and
subsequent stem cell research scandals dovetailed their public personas to
the ‘ontological possibility of their promised stem cells in fluid yet persis-
tently gendered ways’. Middlebrooks and Hazuki argue that the Stimulus-
Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency stem cell research scandal in Japan
and the human embryonic somatic cell nucleus transfer or cloned stem
cell research scandal in South Korea link the perceived integrity of mass-
mediated scientific personas with the ‘integrate-ability’ of their stem cell
research results. The chapter lays bare the vulnerability of ethical and
regulatory oversight in the face of stage-managed ‘scientific selves’ via
personalized public performances in sustaining public support for stem
cell science.
The second thematic segment takes the reader into the biomedical ter-
rain of human embryonic stem cell innovation in India. Despite much
promissory hope and hype invested in therapeutic viability in the Euro-
American formations, the Indian example complicates our understand-
ing of stem cell therapies in a globalized research system. Shroff, through
her extensive work treating spinal cord injury with hESCs, argues how
despite their great potential in curing chronic conditions such as spinal
cord injury (SCI), hESCs have not been used extensively in humans. She
shows that current research on treatment options for traumatic SCI aims
at regaining the lost functions of the spinal cord by promoting re-
myelination (material surrounding nerves) with oligodendrocytes (con-
cerned with the production of myelin [an insulating sheath around many
nerve fibers] in the central nervous system) and formation of neurons.
The case studies detailed in this chapter are the first of their kind to dem-
onstrate the adequate efficacy of hESCs in SCI patients with a good toler-
ability profile. Shroff draws on accumulated data to show how patients
gained voluntary movement of the areas below the levels of injury as well
as improvements in bladder and bowel sensation and control, gait, and
handgrip. The chapter offers potentially landmark insights into the thera-
peutic potential of largely misunderstood hESC transplantation in SCI
patients.
After seeing a successful hESC case at a conference in Germany, Hopf-
Seidel accompanied 12 patients from 20 to 73 years of age with chronic
conditions such as Lyme, amyotrophic laterals sclerosis, arthritis, and
macular degeneration to India for treatment. Faced with intractable and
debilitating conditions in her patients, she recommended pre-blastomeric
embryonic stem cell therapy in India. The chapter details the outcome of
three intensive trips to the clinic between 2012 and 2014 with patients
who could not experience any improvement through previous conven-
tional medical treatments. The chapter traces the journey and illustrates
the outcomes based on photographic and biomedical evidence gathered
on these trips and subsequent follow-ups in Germany.
The third and final segment takes us into the world of patient positions
on stem cells. Singh as well as Davis and Davis show in their respective
chapters how these positions offer literal examples of patience and resil-
ience, while Appleton and Bharadwaj draw on patient and practitioner
20 A. Bharadwaj
experiences in the larger context of engineered shifts in the Indian policy

landscape.
The notion of ‘active parent’ blurs the lines between parental and pro-
fessional activism. Singh explores this complex intersection to show how
active parents and parental activism intersect to produce a unique biogra-
phy of an emerging stem cell intervention. The chapter documents the
personal journey of Singh as a working professional who took on the
seemingly impossible task of finding a cure for his four-year-old son, who
in 2005 was diagnosed with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a muscle-
wasting condition. The chapter traces the deeply personal account of
accepting, resisting, and rejecting the diagnosis and the intractable final-
ity it presented. This account emerges from an autobiographical space
and narrates the birth of an ‘active parent’ who with 10 other ‘active
parents’ (connected to more than 200 parents) took on the challenge of
finding an adipose stem cell-based cure. The chapter charts the failures
and successes on the path to directing and driving the study and how
parents coped with the demands of laying down the complete study pro-
tocols through to ensuring the safety and efficacy of the study to secure
some semblance of therapeutic value for their children.
When Shannon Davis became quadriplegic after a devastating and
life-altering car accident, she sought treatment in India from Dr. Shroff.
In the first three months of treatment, Shannon showed improvement in
all muscle groups and was able to stand upright with leg and abdominal
calipers for longer and longer periods. In this chapter, the Davises argue
that while the potential of stem cells to transform medicine will be a real-
ity one day, for families in need of help today (or yesterday), the urgency
to make decisions plays a critical role. The account shows how parents of
desperately ill or injured children, especially those for whom no estab-
lished treatment exists, search for and are often willing to engage in treat-
ments in far corners of the world with potential positive outcomes. In the
final analysis, they share the process of their travel to India and the expe-
rience of receiving positive results via human embryonic stem cell
treatment.
Appleton and Bharadwaj show that the fraught and contested terrain
of stem cell research and therapies is an undulating landscape of utopias
and dystopias. While dystopic scenarios of stem cell research and therapy
in unregulated and unregimented nation-states include fear of mass epi-

demics of cancerous growths in uninsured, ill-informed, and gullible
patients, the utopic scenario imagines personalized medicine without
multi-national pharmaceutical profit motivations or leading hospitals
and physicians acting as gatekeepers for accessible care. Extending the
tropic notion of ‘biocrossing’ (Bharadwaj 2008), the chapter articulates
the faint traces of utopic and dystopic logics underscoring these ‘cross-
ings’ and the evolving biography of a contested terrain this (re)scripts.
Appleton and Bharadwaj engage with ethnographic immersion into the
lives of physicians, researchers, policymakers, and patients to conceptual-
ize evolving scenarios that remain divergent and yet the source of emer-
gent but shifting utopias and dystopias that often are experienced as a
heterotopia.
* * *
This book produces a unique account of the emerging research/therapy

interface in order to explicate the high-risk and high-gain production of
stem cell biotechnologies around the globe. The collection situates these
developments in the context of larger global developments, most notably,
the United States, Europe, and Asia to excavate the multi-national and
multi-sited nature of contentious innovation culturing the stem cell tech-
nology landscape. Our hope is to provide an insightful account detailing
arenas of stem cell research; local and global trajectories of therapeutic
application and scientific collaborations; lines of public- and private-
sector intersections; zones of ethical contestation; implications for pri-
vate- and public-sector investments in science and biotechnology; and
the tenuous nature of governance and its implications for both Euro-
American science and burgeoning regenerative biotechnology sectors in
India. In other words, this book is small but has big aspirations. It’s a
dialogue across cultures: social sciences and biosciences, Indian science
and Euro-American science, clinical scientists providing stem cell care,
and patients embodying these scientific breakthroughs. The common
denominator is the word ‘science’: it brings us together, binds us together.
While science is curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge and ideas, our
points of departure and cultures of practice are deeply informed by how
22 A. Bharadwaj
and where we are located: institutionally, culturally, as well as geographi-

cally. Much like stem cells and their regenerative capacity, our work prac-
tices and thought processes also gestate in a distinct cultural medium.
Our sincere hope is that this book will be the starting point of a unique
mixing of cultures seemingly removed from each other. It seeks to inau-
gurate a conversation across disciplinary and national boundaries and
share outcomes of research-led understanding and interdisciplinary col-
laborations. While we remain embedded in our respective cultures of
knowing, problem-solving and playing to our inimitable strengths and
unique approaches to understanding the cellular form would, I strongly
feel, succeed in enabling a shared understanding of what collaborative
effort can achieve. It is in this spirit of collaboration and common interest
in the cellular form that we ought to attempt moving forward.
References
Bharadwaj, Aditya. 2008. Biosociality and Biocrossings: Encounters with
Assisted Conception and Embryonic Stem Cell in India. In Biosocialities,
Genetics, and the Social Sciences: Making Biologies and Identities, ed. Sahra
Gibbon and Carlos Novas, 98–116. London; New York: Routledge.
———. 2009. Assisted Life: The Neoliberal Moral Economy of Embryonic
Stem Cells in India. In Assisting Reproduction, Testing Genes: Global Encounters
with New Biotechnologies, ed. D. Birenbaum-Carmeli and Marcia C. Inhorn,
239. New York: Berghahn Books.
———. 2012. Enculturating Cells: Anthropology, Substance, and Science of
Stem Cells. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 303–317.
———. 2013a. Ethics of Consensibility, Subaltern Ethicality: The Clinical
Application of Embryonic Stem Cells in India. BioSocieties 8 (1): 25–40.
———. 2013b. Subaltern Biology? Local Biologies, Indian Odysseys, and the
Pursuit of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Therapies. Medical Anthropology 32
(4): 359–373.
———. 2013c. Experimental Subjectification: The Pursuit of Human
Embryonic Stem Cells in India. Ethnos 79 (1): 84–107.
———. 2015. Badnam Science? The Spectre of the ‘Bad’ Name and the Politics
of Stem Cell Science in India. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal
12: 1–18. Accessed April 21, 2017. doi:10.4000/samaj.3999
Bharadwaj, Aditya, and Peter Glasner. 2009. Local Cells, Global Science: The
Proliferation of Stem Cell Technologies in India. London: Routledge.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and

Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Das, Veena. 2015. Afflictions: Health, Disease, Poverty. New York: Fordham
University Press.
Fischer, M.M.J. 2003. Emergent Forms of Life and the Anthropological Voice.
Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1986. Of Other Spaces. Translated by Jay Miskowiec. Diacritics
16 (1): 22–27.
Franklin, Sarah. 2003. Ethical Biocapital: New Strategies of Cell Culture. In
Remaking Life and Death: Toward an Anthropology of the Biosciences, ed. Sarah
Franklin and Margaret Lock, 97–128. Santa Fe, NM: University of New
Mexico Press.
———. 2005. Stem Cells R Us: Emergent Life Forms and the Global Biological.
In Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological
Problems, ed. A. Ong and S.J. Collier, 59–78. New York; London: Blackwell.
———. 2013. Biological Relatives: IVF, Stem Cells, and the Future of Kinship.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press. http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=
469257
Galison, Peter. 2003. Einstein’s Clocks, Poincaré’s Maps: Empires of Time.
New York: Norton.
Helmreich, S. 2011. Nature/Culture/Seawater. American Anthropologist 113:
132–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548- 1433.2010.01311.x
Hetherington, K. 1997. The Badlands of Modernity: Heterotopia and Social
Ordering. London: Routledge.
Hogle, Linda. 2005. Stem Cell Policy as Spectacle Ripe for Anthropological
Analysis. Anthropology News 46: 24–25.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
———, ed. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social
Order. New York: Routledge.
———. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the
United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Patra, P.K., and M. Sleeboom-Faulkner. 2009. Bionetworking: Experimental
Stem Cell Therapy and Patient Recruitment in India. Anthropology &
Medicine 16: 147–163.
Salter, B. 2008. Governing Stem Cell Science in China and India: Emerging
Economies and the Global Politics of Innovation. New Genetics and Society
27: 145–159.
24 A. Bharadwaj
Sleeboom-Faulkner, M., and P.K. Patra. 2008. The Bioethical Vacuum: National
Policies on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research in India and China.
Journal of International Biotechnology Law 5: 221–234.
Sperling, Stefan. 2013. Reasons of Conscience: The Bioethics Debate in Germany.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Squier, Susan Merrill. 2004. Liminal Lives: Imagining the Human at the Frontiers
of Biomedicine. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Thompson, Charis. 2013. Good Science: The Ethical Choreography of Stem Cell
Research. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wainwright, S.P., C. Williams, M. Michael, B. Farsides, and A. Cribb. 2006.
Ethical Boundary-Work in the Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Sociology of
Health Illness 28 (6): 732–748.
Waldby, C., and M. Cooper. 2010. From Reproductive Work to Regenerative
Labour: The Female Body and the Stem Cell Industries. Feminist Theory 11:
3–22.
Widschwendter, Martin, et al. 2006. Epigenetic Stem Cell Signature in Cancer.
Nature Genetics 39: 157–158.
Aditya Bharadwaj is a professor at the Graduate Institute of International and

Development Studies, Geneva. He moved to the Graduate Institute, Geneva, in
January 2013, after completing seven years as a lecturer and later as a senior lec-
turer at the School of Social and Political Studies at the University of Edinburgh.
He received his doctoral degree from the University of Bristol and spent more
than three years as a postdoctoral research fellow at Cardiff University before
moving to the University of Edinburgh in 2005. His principal research interest
is in the area of assisted reproductive, genetic, and stem cell biotechnologies and
their rapid spread in diverse global locales. In 2013, he was awarded a European
Research Council Consolidator Grant to examine the burgeoning rise of stem
cell biotechnologies in India. Bharadwaj’s work has been published in peer-
reviewed journals such as Medical Anthropology; Ethnos; BioSocieties; Social Science
& Medicine; Anthropology & Medicine; Health, Risk & Society; and Culture,
Medicine and Psychiatry and he has contributed several chapters to edited collec-
tions. He has co-authored Risky Relations, Family Kinship and the New Genetics
(2006) and is the lead author of Local Cells, Global Science: The Proliferation of
Stem Cell Technologies in India (2009). His sole-authored research monograph is
titled Conceptions: Infertility and Procreative Technologies in India (2016).
Part I
Regenerating Ethics
Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Cells Do
Fly
Sarah Franklin
Three of the most striking features of technological change in the twenty-

first century are its speed, variety, and scale: the means by which people
communicate, shop, travel, work, read, play, associate, and learn have
undergone continuous ‘disruptive’ changes over the past 50 years, and in
this half century the rise of television, space exploration, and the airline
industry have been succeeded by genetic engineering, computing, and
the internet.
Two key intersections can help us explain the rapid pace of technologi-
cal change affecting all aspects of contemporary society—including
health technologies and the process generally known as ‘translation’
whereby a technology becomes widely used, profitable, and normalised.
The first key intersection is the increasing interconnectivity between
technological domains that enables radical changes to traditional activi-
ties such as agriculture—in which today, routinely, robotics, computing,
gene editing, and satellite technology are combined to enable more effi-
cient planting, cultivation, and harvesting of new types of crops. These
S. Franklin (*)
Department of Sociology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK
© The Author(s) 2018 27

A. Bharadwaj (ed.), Global Perspectives on Stem Cell Technologies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63787-7_2
28 S. Franklin
are the same recombinant intersections that enable unprecedented scales

of capacity to be achieved, such as how many planes can be in the air at
the same time and how many passengers can buy seats on them using
electronic-ticketing apps on their mobile phones. The second key inter-
section is between technology and subjectivity—or consciousness. For we
cannot explain technological change in terms of capacity alone: it must
also be explained in terms of social identities, orientations, and associa-
tions. There must be a shared perception of a need and a whole world-
view that supports this perception in order for machines to be invented
that will use complex evolving algorithms to learn to hear your voice and
speak back to you or even to drive your car.
One of Karl Marx’s most famous quotations can be summarised as the
hand-mill gives you feudal society, the steam mill the industrial capitalist
(1971, p. 9).1 What he meant, however, was not simply that a different
technology produced a different kind of society. His interest lay in the
specific nature of what he understood to be a complex evolutionary pro-
cess, not unlike the changes to physiology affecting speciation that so
interested his contemporary Charles Darwin. Why, Marx wanted to
know, was a specific species of technology—the windmill—in operation
for millennia before the sudden change to steam power? Why were care-
ful technological adjustments made to windmills by hundreds of genera-
tions of mill-dependent societies for centuries prior to the frantic period
of technological replacement that suddenly erupted in the late seven-
teenth century? Marx argues we cannot explain the revolutionary tri-
umph of steam-driven mills over water- and wind-milling as a result of
technological capacity, or power, alone because the orientation of innova-
tion has changed so dramatically, which Marx argues must reflect a
change in social structure—and above all a change in consciousness, or
worldview.
The Bioindustrial Revolution

The question of rapid, or revolutionary, technological development has
become one of the most pressing sociological questions before us not
only because it is so difficult to explain—but equally because it is so
Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Cells Do Fly 29
tempting not to explain technological change at all. This is because one of

the signs a technology has become revolutionary is that it has become
obvious, normal, and ordinary: the mobile phone seems to have become
successful because so many people want to use it and because it delivers
the step-changing functionality consumers are eager to buy. As with the
mobile phone, so too with the internet, email, and computing: the utility
of each seemingly explains its ubiquity and vice versa. Neither Marx nor
many contemporary sociologists would deny the powerful role of basic
scientific discovery in the process of technological change. However,
there remains a compelling and even self-evident case that discovery
alone is not a sufficient explanation for the dramatically increased speed
and scale of technological change experienced since the end of the eigh-
teenth century.
According to the classic Marxist argument that social relations deter-
mine technological change, and not the other way around, the most
important relation is between the capitalist owner of the means of pro-
duction and the wage labourers who have been disenfranchised not
only of their individual labour power and skills, but also of their collec-
tive associations with the shared activities of production and their
alienation from the means of production. Marx argues that much of the
evolution of machinery during the industrial revolution was driven by
the motivations of the capitalist-owner class to extract more value from
the proletariat—a motivation that increasingly had become a norm and
a requirement under the emergent social form of industrial capitalism.
The crucial historical turning point of this process and its most revolu-
tionary moment, he argues, is the point at which machines begin to
make other machines, which will in turn replace workers with a more
easily controllable, more efficient, tireless, and inanimate means of
production.
From this point of view, technological change must be understood in
terms not only of the production of desired goods, such as commodities,
but also in terms of the broad social and historical forces that shape per-
ceptions of value. The extraction of surplus value for profit achieved
through increasing managerial control over the labour process is a recent
idea: the value of work was not traditionally defined in such a manner.
Mass production did not become socially valued because steam engines
30 S. Franklin
made large-scale industrial manufacturing possible. To the contrary, the

highly specialised division of labour required by increasingly mechanised
manufacture was consistently resisted by the urban proletariat, who saw
few of its rewards. At the same time, the process of industrialisation has
undoubtedly brought enormous benefits and marked the beginning of a
new era of rapid worldwide economic growth—so rapid that in only two
centuries the world’s population has increased tenfold and a new geologic
era has been proposed to mark the impact on the earth itself of industrial
manufacturing.
Meanwhile, yet another dimension of technological change is upon us,
and in our own century, the rise of the biological sciences has raised a very
different set of questions about the relationship of new technologies to
social consensus and to industrial capitalism. No one has yet written the
equivalent of Marx’s Capital (1867) for ‘the age of biology’, although
much ink has been spilt on the step-changing consequences for the
human species of molecular genomics. In fact it may turn out that the
new technologies derived from developmental and reproductive biology,
rather than the human genome project, provided the equivalent of the
historical turning point in the mid-nineteenth century, when machines
began to make other machines, for this is when the potency of cells began
to be harnessed to make other cells.
Fittingly, it was exactly a century after the posthumous publication of
Marx’s magisterial three-volume Capital: A critique of political economy
that Robert Edwards, the Cambridge biologist, phoned Patrick Steptoe,
the consultant obstetrician based just outside Manchester, in Oldham, to
discuss the possibility of collaborating on a new means of technologically
assisted human reproduction, namely, in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Just
over a decade later Louise Brown was born, and a second industrial revo-
lution began to unfold in northwestern England—this time based on a
technological platform that enabled the reprogramming of reproductive
biology. If IVF is the equivalent of the steam engine in what Ian Wilmut,
Keith Campbell, and Colin Tudge (2001) have named ‘the age of biologi-
cal control’ that is not only because it is so successful technologically (by
which measure the steam engine is in a different league altogether) but
because it is so popular. Crucially, IVF is successful and revolutionary,
because it has been accompanied by a change in consciousness about not
Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Cells Do Fly 31
only human reproduction, but biology in general. In sum, biology—

including human reproductive biology—has come to be seen as a vast
tool kit, a technological horizon, a new frontier of scientific and eco-
nomic growth (Landecker 2007; Franklin 2013). The pursuit of new
means to repair, reprogramme, and redesign biological entities—from
genes and cells to bacteria and plants, as well as livestock and people—
closely resembles the process described by Marx a century and a half
earlier of closely interlinked transformations in technology and con-
sciousness affecting the means of production. Today it is the means of
reproduction that are coming to be perceived as the promissory source of
vast health and wealth benefits.
Today, as in the early nineteenth century, a great acceleration of tech-
nological change is occurring in the realm of what we might call biologi-
cal equipment—including our own as well as the myriad new species of
apparatus and instruments manufactured for the biotechnology sector,
such as gene sequencers, incubators, and time-lapse embryo monitors.
Today, as in the past, the industrialisation of the bio tool follows a well-
beaten path from the bespoke, site-specific crafting of basic scientific
tools such handmade primers and pipettes to their industrial manufac-
ture and marketing. We are witnessing the gradual expansion, standardi-
sation, and mass production of whole new families of tools such as
synthetic antibodies, receptors, blockers, and other cell- and molecular-
signalling products in both the publicly funded and private commercial
sectors of the biotech industry.
The rapid changes to the very idea of the bio tool that are revolution-
ising the health sector rely on precisely the two forms of technological
intersection described previously: intersecting technological domains—
such as molecular marking and the internet—are what enable primer
banks and depots to operate at a previously unimaginable scale and
speed. But the intersection of technologies with consciousness and
worldview matter too: as biotech becomes increasingly focussed on per-
sonalised medicine and precision interventions, both the professional
scientific communities who develop new ‘translational’ products and
the various constituencies they serve—from patients and clinicians to
investors and policymakers—are changing their ideas about what a bio
tool can do.
32 S. Franklin
This chapter, which is based on a lecture of the same name prepared for
the Intersections conference in Geneva (2014), uses a personal and anec-
dotal set of examples to track some of the important changes at the inter-
section of biology, tools, and consciousness that I argue must be
understood as fundamental to the rapid process of technological change
currently transforming healthcare services in what has been dubbed ‘the
age of biological control’. Alongside the general questions I am asking
here about technological change are some more specific questions about
the models of knowledge and uncertainty we use to analyse the process of
technological innovation. Personalised and precision medicine, two of
the most important new paradigms for understanding a shift away from
mass-produced drugs to new bespoke biological products—such as those
promised by both the regenerative medicine and the stem cell fields—are
often also discussed in relation to preventative and participatory
approaches to the management of diseases such as diabetes. ‘P4 Medicine’,
as this approach has been described, offers us a unique opportunity to
think about technology as highly intersectional, and in the following
examples, my goal is to foreground this intersectionality as an analytic, as
well as pragmatic, device.
Cell Networks
It was nearly 9 pm by the time the packed audience of the Wilkins
Gustave Tuck Lecture Theatre had decanted itself into the reception
room in a far corner of University College London (UCL). Attendance at
the meetings of the London Regenerative Medicine Network (LRMN)2
is always high: it has 6000 members and is the world’s largest organisation
of its kind. Since 2005, the LRMN has held free monthly meetings
enabling scientists, clinicians, entrepreneurs, policymakers, patients, and
the general public to attend events that are ‘totally focussed on accelerat-
ing the attainment of one common goal: the delivery of safe, efficacious
therapies that can be affordably manufactured at scale for use in routine
clinical practice’ (LMRN website). Presentations in this interdisciplinary
forum for cellular translation always follow the same format in the tiered,
800-person theatre where they have been held since moving to UCL
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
An dem heutigen Abend wurde aber in dieser Beziehung eine
Ausnahme gemacht, indem Sidonie nach kurzer Unterhaltung mit
Römer ihren Gästen verkündete, daß dieser sie durch Mittheilungen
über seine Reisen erfreuen würde.
Diese Nachricht wurde mit großer Freude aufgenommen, und der
Graf entledigte sich alsdann unter Vorzeigen der fremden
Gegenstände des der Prinzessin gegebenen Versprechens.
Unter den Gästen befand sich auch Mühlfels und dessen Mutter,
die Oberhofmeisterin.
Der Erstere fühlte sich an dem heutigen Abend in keiner
angenehmen Stimmung, indem man ihn über den Grafen vergaß
und lediglich diesem alle Aufmerksamkeit zuwandte.
Dieser Umstand verletzte des Barons Eitelkeit. Bisher hatte man
gern seinem Wort gelauscht und seine Mittheilungen hatten stets
Beifall geerntet; heute jedoch sah er sich wenig beachtet, und was
ihn am tiefsten verletzte, selbst von Sidonien, die, wie ihm nicht
entging, ihr ganzes Interesse dem Grafen zu schenken schien.
Sein Unmuth wurde freilich später dadurch beschwichtigt, daß er
Gelegenheit fand, sich in der gewöhnten Weise geltend zu machen,
ebenso durch die Voraussetzung, daß des Grafen ernstes, fast
kaltes Wesen ihm wenig geeignet schien, zärtliche Gefühle bei den
Frauen zu erregen, ganz abgesehen, daß, wie er sich mit Behagen
sagte, sich der Graf hinsichts der persönlichen Vorzüge nicht mit ihm
vergleichen durfte.
In diesem angenehmen Bewußtsein zollte er dem Grafen lauten
Beifall, obwol es ihm nicht gelang, diesem eine besondere
Beachtung für sich abzunöthigen. Vielleicht würde dies geschehen
sein, hätte der Graf des Barons Stellung bei dem Prinzen gekannt,
was jedoch nicht der Fall war. Da Sidonie, Aurelie und der Graf der
zu beobachtenden Vorsicht in ihrem Verhalten zu einander stets
eingedenk blieben, so gewann der Baron auch nicht die leiseste
Ahnung von dem wichtigen Interesse, das diese drei Personen
aneinander fesselte. Seine Täuschung wurde um so mehr befestigt,
da Sidonie, durch die Nähe des Geliebten beglückt, ihre
Empfindungen auch auf ihre Gäste übertrug und so auch Mühlfels
durch vermehrte freundliche Aufmerksamkeit beehrte.
Dieser ihm so angenehme Umstand diente ihm zugleich als
Beweis des von Sidonien für ihn gehegten wärmeren Interesses, und
so schied er in sehr befriedigter Stimmung.
Dies fand auch in Bezug auf die übrigen Personen statt,
namentlich jedoch hinsichts Sidoniens.
Als sie sich zurückgezogen hatte und mit Aurelien allein befand,
umarmte sie diese in überwallendem Gefühl, indem sie bemerkte:
»O, Aurelie, welch ein schöner Abend! O, daß ihm tausend und
aber tausend solche folgen möchten!«
Nach kurzer Pause fuhr sie dann fort:
»O, daß mein Glück durch den schrecklichen Gedanken getrübt
werden muß, wie bald diese Zeit dahin, wie bald e r mir wieder fern
sein und mich wieder die ganze Oede meines kummervollen
Daseins umgeben wird! O, ich mag nicht daran denken! Mein Herz
zuckt schmerzvoll zusammen und ich fühle mich entmuthigt bis zum
Tode!«
»Wie könnte das anders sein, und ich meine, theure Sidonie, es
ist gut, daß Du Dich der raschen Vergänglichkeit Deines Glücks
bewußt bleibst, um auf den Verlust desselben vorbereitet zu sein.
Zwar fühle ich mit Dir, wie schmerzlich diese Nothwendigkeit ist;
aber immer und immer mahnen mich die Verhältnisse, ihrer
eingedenk zu sein, damit Du Dich nicht in Deinem Kummer verlierst
und sich derselbe nicht noch mehr erhöht!« — entgegnete Aurelie
voll der herzlichsten Theilnahme.
»O, Du hast Recht, ganz Recht! Wie könnte es auch anders sein;
Deine Liebe sorgt und wacht ja unablässig über mich!« — fiel
Sidonie ein und umarmte die ihr so theure Freundin.
»Wenn uns auch der Graf verläßt, wir bleiben darum nicht ohne
Trost. Die Gewißheit seiner Nähe, die Hoffnung auf seine
Wiederkehr enthalten ja so viel Beruhigendes und Erfreuliches, daß
Du seine längere Abwesenheit leichter überwinden wirst.«
»Ich werde es, weil ich es m u ß. Ach, das Herz hat seine eigenen
Forderungen, meine Gute, und eben weil ich mich nach so langer
Zeit wieder glücklich fühle, vermag ich den Gedanken an den Verlust
des theuern Freundes noch nicht zu fassen. Aber Du hast Recht; ich
muß ruhiger werden und mein Glück mit Mäßigung und
Beherrschung genießen, und ich werde darauf bedacht sein. Lass’
uns noch einmal seine Geschenke betrachten, die er mir aus weiter
Ferne gebracht und die mir sagen, wie er meiner immer und immer
gedacht hat, in der Wüste wie an den Stätten der Kunst und der
blühenden Natur.«
Und Arm in Arm nahten sie dem Tisch, auf welchem dieselben
lagen, und ergötzten sich an ihrem Anblick, bewunderten deren
Eigenthümlichkeiten und gedachten dabei des Grafen oft und oft, bis
die späte Stunde sie zum Scheiden nöthigte. Diesem angenehmen
Abend folgten noch ähnliche. Bald war die von dem Grafen
festgesetzte Zeit zu seinem Aufenthalt verflossen, und dennoch
vermochte er Sidonien nicht Lebewohl zu sagen. Bei jedem
Scheiden von ihr las er ja in ihrem Auge die Bitte, noch zu verweilen
und ihr süßes Glück nicht zu stören. Und wie gern erfüllte er ihre
Wünsche, von dem eigenen Verlangen und Glück, das ihm ihr
Umgang gewährte, dazu genöthigt. Statt nur auf zwei Wochen
dehnte er seinen Besuch auf einen Monat aus, dann aber, durch
seine persönlichen Verhältnisse bestimmt, reiste er ab. Er schied
jedoch mit dem Versprechen, bald zurück zu kehren und alsdann
eine längere Zeit zu verweilen.
Während seiner Anwesenheit hatte er Sidonie nicht nur in den
Abendcirkeln gesehen, sondern er fand auch außerdem Gelegenheit
dazu, indem ihn der Ersteren Bruder bisweilen zu einem Besuch der
Prinzessin aufforderte.
Sidoniens abgeschlossenes Leben, das, unbeachtet von ihrem
Gemahl, ihr die Freiheit gewährte, sich nach Belieben zu bewegen,
nahm dem Grafen allmälig die Bedenken, welche er wegen seiner
öfteren Besuche bei Sidonien gehegt hatte. Da er dieselben jedoch
nur in des Prinzen Begleitung machte und ihn Sidonie daher nie
allein empfing, so däuchte ihm keine Gefahr für sie darin zu liegen,
und um so leichter gab er dem Verlangen seines Herzens nach.
Alle die bezeichneten Umstände waren es auch, welche ihm das
Versprechen seiner baldigen Wiederkehr abnöthigten. Hierauf übte
zugleich die freudige Entdeckung der vortheilhaften Wirkungen
seiner Nähe auf Sidoniens Befinden einen wesentlichen Einfluß aus.
Sie hatte in der kurzen Zeit seiner Anwesenheit sichtlich an Frische
gewonnen und die bisher von Kummer gebleichte Wange einen
feinen Rosenschimmer erhalten, ihr Auge war belebter, und sie
schien in dem Genuß ihres Glücks selbst ihr trübes Schicksal zu
vergessen. Wie hätte da der Graf von ihr scheiden können, ohne ihr
die Hoffnung des Wiedersehens zurück zu lassen! Ueberdies waren
die Verhältnisse der Art, daß er die Rückkehr ohne Sorge eines
Verrathes wagen durfte. Sidoniens Umgebung betrachtete ihn
lediglich als den Freund des Prinzen Leonhard, dem die Prinzessin
als solchen und als den interessanten Reisenden eine gewisse
Aufmerksamkeit schenkte, was man als etwas Gewöhnliches zu
bezeichnen für gut fand und den Besuchen des Grafen daher keine
Bedeutung beilegte.
Dies kam der Prinzessin sehr zu statten, ganz besonders jedoch
die häufige Abwesenheit des Prinzen, wodurch auch zugleich
Mühlfels von etwaigen Beobachtungen abgehalten wurde. Der Baron
sah den Grafen nur noch einmal und zwar an dem Abende, an
welchem dieser sich von der Prinzessin vor allen Gästen in der
förmlichsten Weise verabschiedete.
Er vor Allen hätte ihnen unter anderen Umständen gefährlich
werden können, da er das größte Interesse für Sidonie hegte, und so
war es ein glücklicher Zufall, daß die Umstände sich also
gestalteten.
Wir nennen diesen Zufall einen g l ü c k l i c h e n, anscheinend war
er ein solcher, und dennoch wäre es für Sidoniens und des Grafen
künftiges Geschick besser gewesen, hätte ihnen Mühlfels’ Nähe und
Beobachtung nicht gefehlt und diese in ihnen Zweifel an ihrer
Sicherheit erregt und sie dadurch zugleich veranlaßt, auf ein
baldiges Wiedersehen zu verzichten.
Denn es unterliegt keiner Frage, daß sich Mühlfels’ Interesse für
die Prinzessin bei den wiederholten Besuchen in so weit verrathen
hätte, daß des Grafen Aufmerksamkeit auf ihn dadurch erweckt
worden und er veranlaßt worden wäre, den Charakter des Barons zu
prüfen und vielleicht Erkundigungen über denselben einzuziehen.
Da dies nicht geschah, so blieben Sidonie und Aurelie in der
früheren Täuschung und somit von deren Gefahren bedroht.
Sechstes Kapitel.
Ungefähr drei Monate waren über die näher bezeichneten

Vorgänge dahin gegangen. Der Prinz hatte seinem Treiben trotz der
erhaltenen Ermahnungen seines Oheims keine Schranken angelegt
und eben so wenig das Geringste gethan, um sich mit seiner
Gemahlin auszusöhnen, und so war das wohlgemeinte Wort des
Fürsten vergeblich gesprochen worden. Alles, wozu sich der Prinz
bequemte, bestand darin, sein Treiben dem Fürsten mehr denn
früher zu verheimlichen, was ihm jedoch nur zum Theil gelang, da er
seinen Neigungen nur zu leicht und zu oft die Zügel schießen ließ
und alsdann jede Vorsicht und Rücksicht vergaß. Die Folge davon
war nicht nur die Unzufriedenheit des fürstlichen Oheims mit seinem
Neffen, sondern auch jene Uebersättigung des Letzteren, die unter
solchen Umständen niemals auszubleiben pflegt. Der Prinz befand
sich seitdem in einem stets gereizten und unmuthigen Zustand, der
ihn im höchsten Grade peinigte und von welchem seine Umgebung
und selbst Mühlfels nicht eben wenig zu leiden hatten.
Zwar bemühte sich der Letztere, die Stimmung des Prinzen zu
verbessern; indessen vergebens, da demselben alle früher beliebten
Arrangements jetzt langweilig und ungenießbar erschienen.
Um seinen Unmuth noch in hohem Grade zu steigern, sprach
auch der Fürst immer bestimmter das Verlangen aus, daß der Prinz
den Staatsgeschäften ein größeres Interesse zuwenden und sich
darum nicht so häufig und auf lange Zeit aus seiner Nähe entfernen
sollte. Zu ernsten Dingen fühlte der Prinz jedoch jetzt gerade am
wenigsten Neigung und fügte sich daher nur mit Widerstreben in den
Befehl seines Oheims. Mühlfels sah sich in Folge dessen veranlaßt,
auf Mittel zu denken, durch welche er die Abspannung und üble
Laune des Prinzen beseitigen und zugleich ein gutes Einvernehmen
zwischen diesem und dem Fürsten herstellen könnte. Und so sehen
wir ihn denn in dem Boudoir seiner Mutter, der Oberhofmeisterin der
Prinzessin, mit welcher er die bezeichnete Angelegenheit in
eingehender Weise erwog. Denn es muß bemerkt werden, daß der
Baron in dem eigenen Interesse sowol als demjenigen des Prinzen
seine Mutter häufig zu Rathe zog und sie einen nicht unwesentlichen
Einfluß auf seine Anordnungen in dieser Hinsicht ausübte.
Die Baronin besaß eine ausgedehnte Damenbekanntschaft und
wurde nicht eben selten mit der Bitte angegangen, den Prinzen
durch ihren Sohn auf eine oder die andere Schönheit aufmerksam
machen zu lassen, oder auch wol die Gelegenheit zu bieten, daß der
Prinz diese persönlich kennen lernte. Der Letztere besuchte nämlich
mit Mühlfels dann und wann die Baronin, nachdem diese bedacht
gewesen, des Prinzen Auge durch angenehme weibliche
Erscheinungen in ihrem Hause zu überraschen.
Wir sehen, daß die Oberhofmeisterin neben ihrer Stellung als
solche auch noch eine andere, mindestens zweideutig zu nennende,
einnahm, so wenig diese sich auch mit ihrem eigentlichen Beruf
vereinigte. Sidonie war damit nicht bekannt, noch hegte sie so viel
Interesse für die Baronin, um nach deren sittlichen Eigenschaften zu
forschen. Des Prinzen Empfehlung hatte ihr dieselbe zugeführt, und
es war ihr überhaupt ziemlich gleichgiltig, von welcher Dame diese
Stellung eingenommen wurde, wenn dieselbe nur überhaupt ein von
ihr gewünschtes Verhalten beobachtete. Und dies war bei der
Baronin durchaus der Fall. Mit dem Charakter der Prinzessin bald
genügend vertraut, war sie bedacht, sich im Wesen und Benehmen
ganz deren Wünschen anzubequemen, und diese Klugheit sicherte
ihr eine gute Aufnahme bei Sidonien. Da sie sich überdies auch
gegen des Prinzen Verhalten erklärte und darin durch ihren Sohn in
der bereits angegebenen Weise wesentlich unterstützt wurde, so
zweifelte Sidonie nicht an der aufrichtigen Theilnahme der Baronin
und dankte ihr dafür durch ein gütiges Entgegenkommen. Fern lag
ihr die Vermuthung, wie sehr sie sich täuschte und daß Mutter und
Sohn lediglich ein und dasselbe Ziel verfolgten, und so geschah es,
daß sie auch der Baronin gleich deren Sohn den Zutritt in ihre
Abendcirkel gestattete. —
Wir kehren nach diesen Erläuterungen zu den Berathungen der
Letzteren zurück.
»Der Prinz hat also seine Tänzerinnen satt?« fragte die Baronin.
»Durchaus, wie das vorauszusehen war. Sie kennen ja seinen
Charakter und wissen, daß er nur in dem fortwährenden Wechsel
der Genüsse Befriedigung findet.«
»Es fehlt also an einem Ersatz?«
»So ist es, und dieser Ersatz wird um so schwerer zu erhalten
sein, da der Prinz durch die letzten Debauchen allen Geschmack an
Aehnlichem verloren hat.«
»Um so besser, so wird eine Dame aus guter Familie, mit
Schönheit und dem erforderlichen Benehmen ausgestattet, leicht
seinen Beifall gewinnen.« »Möglich. Kennen Sie eine solche
Dame?«
»Allerdings. Es ist Fräulein von Lieben. Sie machte mir neulich in
Begleitung ihrer Mutter einen Besuch, und diese deutete in
vertraulicher Weise die große Verehrung an, welche ihre schöne
Tochter für den schönen Prinzen hege, und dies reicht hin, Weiteres
in Deinem Sinn zu veranlassen. Die Liebens sind, wie Du weißt,
ziemlich ohne Mittel, ihr Vermögen ist derangirt; eine Liaison mit dem
Prinzen würde ihr daher sehr gelegen kommen, auf welche sie es
vielleicht auch abgesehen hat.«
»Die Lieben ist also hübsch und in die Künste der Koketterie
eingeweiht?«
»Vollkommen. Sie hat den vorigen Winter in Paris zugebracht und
scheint diese Zeit dazu vortrefflich benutzt zu haben.«
»Dann könnte es ihr vielleicht gelingen, den Prinzen zu fesseln
und ihn von seiner Apathie zu befreien. Das käme mir sehr gelegen,
denn ich fürchte fast, der Prinz könnte, verharrte er darin, sich
dadurch und durch des Fürsten Ermahnungen am Ende veranlaßt
sehen, sich mit der Prinzessin auszusöhnen, und Sie wissen, das
würde meine Pläne zerstören.«
»Das fürchte ich nicht. Der Prinz hat eine viel zu bestimmte
Abneigung gegen die Prinzessin, als daß jemals eine Aussöhnung
stattfinden dürfte, ganz abgesehen, daß die Letztere sich niemals
dazu bequemen wird. Ich habe mich bemüht, Sidoniens Charakter
zu erforschen, und bin zu der Ueberzeugung gelangt, daß sie sich
immerdar treu bleiben und darum auch niemals eine Annäherung
zwischen dem Paar stattfinden wird.«
»Das ist mir allerdings angenehm zu hören; indessen genügt es
mir nicht. Sie wissen, ich wünsche Sidoniens Gunst zu erlangen;
meine oder vielmehr unsere Bemühungen sind bisher jedoch nur
von geringem Erfolg gekrönt worden, und das ist mir unerträglich.«
»Ist es nicht allein Deine Schuld? Du bist zu viel abwesend und
vermagst daher Deine Absicht nicht in der entsprechenden Weise zu
verfolgen. In solchen Dingen kommt es jedoch darauf an, stets in der
Nähe zu sein, um den rechten Augenblick wahrzunehmen. Doch ich
darf Dich daran nicht erinnern; Du weißt das eben so gut. Ich sage
Dir nur so viel, daß nach meinen Beobachtungen die Prinzessin
zärtlichen Gefühlen zugänglich ist. Sie besitzt ein zu gefühlvolles
Herz, um nicht der Liebe zu bedürfen, und ich glaube, ich würde
bereits Beweise dafür erhalten haben, wäre Graf Römer länger hier
gewesen.«
»Was sagst Du?!« rief der Baron überrascht. »Graf Römer?! Sollte
dieser ernste, kalte Mann einen tieferen Eindruck auf sie erzeugen
können, oder etwa schon erzeugt haben?«
»Nun, nun, beruhige Dich! So weit, glaube ich, ist es wol nicht
gekommen, obgleich ich überzeugt bin, daß das nicht gerade
unmöglich wäre. Erscheint es Dir nicht ganz natürlich, daß die
Prinzessin bei ihrem abgeschlossenen Leben alle jene Personen
gern sieht, die ihr in so interessanter Weise die Stunden zu
verkürzen vermögen? Das Wohlgefallen an dem Wort geht bei den
Frauen nur zu leicht auf die Person über, die es ausspricht, und Du
erkennst darin, daß ich mit meiner Vorstellung, Dich nicht häufig
genug der Prinzessin zu nähern, durchaus Recht habe. Wenn man
sich alle acht oder vierzehn Tage nur einmal und auch nur in
Anwesenheit Anderer sieht, kann von einer zärtlichen Annäherung
nicht die Rede sein. Die Gelegenheit dazu ließe sich unter den
obwaltenden Verhältnissen leicht herbeiführen, da ich dazu die Hand
bieten kann. Bedenke das Alles!«
»Ich gebe Ihnen durchaus Recht, meine Mutter, und bitte Sie, mit
mir gemeinschaftlich die Mittel zu erwägen, welche geeignet sind,
des Prinzen Wünsche zu befriedigen und ihn zugleich mehr an
seinen Wohnsitz zu fesseln, damit ich nach Ihrem Rath handeln
kann.«
»Das könnte durch die Lieben geschehen; gefällt sie dem Prinzen,
so werde ich ihr die Nothwendigkeit vorstellen, ihren Aufenthalt nicht
nach der Residenz oder irgendwo anders zu verlegen, um den
Prinzen hier zu fesseln und so des Fürsten Wunsch zu erfüllen; da
sie sich dadurch des Letzteren Dank sichert, so erfordert es schon
die Klugheit, sich um ein solches Arrangement zu bemühen.«
»Ein vortrefflicher Plan! Und glauben Sie, daß es der Lieben
gelingen dürfte?«
»Ich zweifle nicht daran. Das Mädchen ist eben so klug als schön,
und ihre Mutter hat früher hinreichende Erfahrungen in diesem Punkt
gemacht, um ihr dabei nicht würdig zur Seite stehen zu können.«
»So hätte ich ja die besten Aussichten für die Zukunft, besonders
da auch der Mann, der, wie Sie meinen, einen gewissen Eindruck
auf die Prinzessin gemacht hat, abgereist ist.«
»Ich zweifle nicht daran. Ich werde dem Prinzen in den nächsten
Tagen die Gelegenheit verschaffen, die Lieben bei mir zu sehen.
Lausche ihm die rechte Stimmung dazu ab und sorge dafür, daß ich
seinen Wunsch zur rechten Zeit erfahre, um das Weitere zu
veranlassen. Vielleicht nimmt der Prinz das Souper bei mir ein, dabei
läßt sich eine nähere Bekanntschaft zwischen den Beiden leicht und
bequem einleiten.«
»Ich werde nach Ihrem Rath verfahren und freue mich, daß wir
endlich ein Mittel besitzen, das uns die erwünschten Erfolge in
Aussicht stellt,« entgegnete der Baron und erhob sich.
In diesem Augenblick trat ein Diener mit der Meldung ein, daß der
Castellan Robert des fürstlichen Lustschlosses Waldburg mit seiner
Tochter angelangt sei und die Baronin zu sprechen wünsche.
»So, ist der Robert da und seine Tochter auch?« fragte die
Baronin und fügte hinzu: »Das ist mir lieb. Lass’ sie hereinkommen!«
und bemerkte alsdann gegen ihren Sohn: »Robert war vor einigen
Wochen bei mir und bat mich, seiner Tochter, die ein hübsches
Mädchen von siebenzehn Jahren ist, eine Stelle als Kammerzofe zu
verschaffen. Ich sagte ihm das zu, da ich Robert wegen seiner
früheren Dienste bei uns eine gewisse Rücksicht schulde. Wenn mir
das Mädchen gefällt, nehme ich sie vielleicht zu mir. Ich habe Robert
mit seiner Tochter zu mir bestellt, um mir diese anzusehen. Willst Du
vielleicht dabei sein, so begleite mich zu ihnen. Robert wird sich
freuen, den ehemaligen Junker nun als Mann wieder zu sehen.«
Der Baron war damit einverstanden, nahm den Arm seiner Mutter
und führte sie nach dem Zimmer, in welchem sie von den
bezeichneten Personen erwartet wurden.
»Nun, Robert, sind Sie da?«
Also begrüßte die Baronin den ehemaligen Diener und reichte ihm
die Hand, die Robert respectvoll küßte. Nach ihm nahte sich ihr das
Mädchen, knixte mehrmals und bezeigte ihr ihre Ehrfurcht gleich
ihrem Vater durch einen Handkuß.
»Sieh, sieh, das Mädchen hat sich sehr gut ausgewachsen! Die
Waldluft und Einsamkeit scheinen dazu sehr geeignet zu sein,«
bemerkte die Baronin, Mariane, so hieß das Mädchen, mit
Ueberraschung und Wohlgefallen betrachtend, und schaute alsdann
ihren Sohn an, der gleich ihr das in der That reizende Mädchen mit
ähnlichen Gefühlen anblickte.
Die ganze Jugendfrische ihres Alters lachte aus dem rosigen,
lieblich geformten, feinen Antlitz, den dunkeln, blitzenden Augen und
der nicht minder schön geformten Gestalt, der ein Anflug von
Unbefangenheit und Keckheit einen ganz besondern Reiz verlieh.
Mutter und Sohn tauschten einen verständigenden Blick aus, der
ihre Uebereinstimmung des Urtheils über das Mädchen verrieth.
»Also Mariane will sich hier versuchen?« fragte die Baronin.
»Sie brennt vor Verlangen darnach, gnädigste Frau Baronin. Das
Kind ist so lebhaften Geistes und möchte gleich einem Vogel aus
dem Walde fliegen, der ihr schon lange zu enge und einsam ist,«
entgegnete Robert mit einem Seitenblick auf seine Tochter, deren
lebhafte Mienen des Vaters Worte durchaus bestätigten.
»Ist ihr auch nicht zu verdenken. Denn die Jugend verlangt nach
dem Treiben der Welt, und mir scheint, daß Mariane sich auch
besser dazu als zu einem eintönigen Leben im Walde eignet,« fiel
die Baronin ein und wandte sich alsdann an diese mit der Frage:
»Du möchtest also gern aus Deinem Nest fliegen und Dich an
dem glänzenden Leben hier ergötzen?«
»Ach, von Herzen gern!« sprach Mariane rasch und unbefangen
und schaute die Baronin mit vor Verlangen funkelnden Blicken an.
»Nun, es könnte sich wol eine Stelle hier für Dich finden,« meinte
die Baronin, das Mädchen mit prüfenden Blicken betrachtend.
»Tausend, tausend Dank, gnädigste Frau Baronin!« fiel Mariane
ein, nahte sich ihr rasch und küßte ihr unter Knixen wiederholt die
Hand.
»Du scheinst ein lebhaftes Gemüth zu haben, Kind, und trotz der
Einsamkeit ziemlich unbefangen zu sein. Das gefällt mir, so wirst Du
auch klug und verständig genug zu Deinem Dienst sein. Denn mir
däucht, Du paßt ganz gut zu einer Kammerzofe und wirst Dich leicht
und mit Geschick in die neuen Verhältnisse zu fügen wissen.«
»Glauben die gnädige Frau Baronin?« fragte der Castellan mit
sichtlicher Freude.
»Sie kennen ja den Dienst, lieber Robert, und wissen, was man
von einer Zofe verlangt, und ich denke, Mariane wird unsere
Erwartungen nicht täuschen. Ich werde sie zu mir nehmen.«
»O, die Frau Baronin sind gar so gnädig!« fiel der Castellan ein,
sich tief verbeugend. Mariane aber verrieth eine innere lebhafte
Bewegung, mit welcher sie auf’s Neue der Baronin Hand küßte;
doch sprach sie nichts.
»Ich denke, es soll Dir bei mir gefallen, Kind, und wenn Du Dich
bewährst, wer weiß, was aus Dir noch werden kann,« bemerkte die
Baronin mit einem eigenthümlichen Blick, indem sie Mariane auf die
Wange klopfte.
Nachdem sie alsdann noch Mehres über Marianens künftige
Stellung bei ihr besprochen, kündete sie dem Castellan an, daß die
Erstere etwa in einem Monat ihren Dienst antreten und sich dazu
also mit Bequemlichkeit vorbereiten könnte, wobei sie nicht
unterließ, ihr einige Winke über Anzüge und Aehnliches zu geben.
Mit der gespanntesten Aufmerksamkeit und lebhaften Blicken und
Mienen lauschte Mariane ihren Worten und schien von dem
Gedanken, künftig nur gute und hübsche Kleider zu tragen und in
dem Hause der Baronin zu wohnen, ganz entzückt zu sein.
Hierauf nahm die Baronin das Mädchen bei Seite und unterhielt
sich einige Minuten vertraulich mit ihr, wobei sie sich über
Mancherlei Aufklärung von ihr geben ließ und dabei deren geistige
Anlagen prüfte.
Der Baron sprach währenddessen mit dem Castellan über die
Vergangenheit. Alsdann wurden Vater und Tochter entlassen und der
Erstere zugleich angewiesen, vor der Abreise der Tochter noch
weitere Befehle bei der Baronin einzuholen.
Mutter und Sohn kehrten alsdann in das Boudoir zurück.
»Nun, was sagst Du zu dem Mädchen?« fragte die Erstere, den
Sohn mit Befriedigung anblickend.
»Sie ist reizend,« entgegnete dieser.
»Das ist sie in der That; aber sie besitzt nicht nur einen schönen
Körper, sondern auch einen lebhaften Geist, ist klug und weiß
gewandt zu antworten, wie ich mich überzeugt habe. Ebenso bin ich
gewiß, daß sie sich unter einer geschickten Leitung eben so rasch
als vortrefflich und ohne ihre Eigenthümlichkeit einzubüßen,
entwickeln wird.«
»Ich stimme Ihnen durchaus bei, meine Mutter; denn mir däucht,
in diesem Mädchen schlummern die verschiedensten Anlagen, die je
nach den besonderen Verhältnissen zur Geltung gelangen müssen.«
»Du täuschest Dich nicht. Das Verlangen nach einem bewegten
Leben, nach glänzendem Putz sind zugleich mit dem lebhaften
Wunsch in ihr vereint, sich geltend zu machen und ihrer Eitelkeit
geschmeichelt zu sehen. Aus Alledem dürfen wir mit Sicherheit
schließen, daß sie gern bereit sein wird, sich den an sie gestellten
Forderungen anzubequemen, sobald sie dadurch die Befriedigungen
ihres Verlangens zu erzielen vermag. Denn sie ist viel zu eitel und zu
klug, um durch Tugendscrupel belästigt zu werden.«
»Ich glaube Sie zu verstehen, meine Mutter; Sie haben dabei an
den Prinzen gedacht,« fiel der Baron ein.
»So ist es. Und warum sollte es nicht sein? Der Wechsel sagt dem
Prinzen zu, der besondere Gegensatz vielleicht in diesem
Augenblick mehr denn sonst. Warum sollte ihm eine solche wilde
Waldtaube nicht gefallen, nachdem er sich an so vielem zahmen
Geflügel übersättigte? — Doch das ist nur eine Vermuthung, ohne
daß ich eine förmliche Absicht mit Marianen und dem Prinzen
verbinde. Lass’ uns abwarten. Sollte ihm die Lieben etwa nicht
gefallen, so dürfte uns dieses eigenthümliche Mädchen vielleicht
doch noch in unserm Sinne dienen können, besonders wenn die
Sache geschickt angefaßt wird. Es ist das ein Gedanke, der in mir
durch die Verhältnisse erweckt worden ist.«
Also sprach die in dergleichen Intriguen sehr geschickte Baronin,
und ihr Sohn, damit bekannt, fand es nicht für gut, seiner Mutter zu
widersprechen, da er ihrer Klugheit durchaus vertraute. Freilich
sagte er sich, daß Marianens niedere Herkunft zu einer dauernden
Liaison mit dem Prinzen wenig geeignet sei; aber es kam im
schlimmsten Fall auch nicht darauf, sondern lediglich auf die
augenblickliche Zerstreuung des Prinzen an, und dazu schien ihm
das reizende Mädchen sehr geeignet.
Der Baron trennte sich mit dem Versprechen von seiner Mutter,
den Prinzen in den nächsten Tagen zu einem Besuch bei ihr
einzuladen, damit er das Fräulein von Lieben kennen lernte.
Der Prinz hielt sich bisher sehr viel in seinen Gemächern auf,
woselbst er Musik trieb, viel schlief, mit seinen Hunden, deren er
mehre um sich hatte, spielte und sich von Henry, der jetzt eine sehr
wichtige Person war, frivole Geschichten erzählen ließ. Außer
Mühlfels gewährte der Prinz nur wenig anderen Personen noch den
Zutritt und zwar solchen, für welche er ein gewisses Wohlgefallen
hegte oder die ihm im Augenblick Zerstreuung verschafften. Nur
selten fuhr er aus, noch seltener begab er sich zu dem Fürsten,
wenn ihn dieser nicht besonders zu sich einladen ließ.
Sidonie floh er geradezu, wenigstens vermied er es, ihr irgend wo
zu begegnen. Ebenso zeigte er kein Verlangen nach seiner Tochter
und sah dieselbe nur höchstens zufällig und aus der Ferne. Das
liebliche Kind erregte nicht die geringsten zärtlichsten Gefühle in ihm
und er schien sich von dem Gedanken, der Vater desselben zu sein,
ganz entfremdet zu haben. Sidonie wurde, wie das eben nicht
ausbleiben konnte, mit des Prinzen Zustand bekannt gemacht; sie
konnte ihn nur bedauern; denn sich ihm zu nahen, wäre ihr
unmöglich gewesen, nachdem sie erkannt, daß des Fürsten
Ermahnungen durchaus fruchtlos geblieben waren und der Prinz
sich nicht bequemte, irgend etwas zur Aussöhnung mit ihr zu thun.
Wir haben erfahren, wie schwer ihr eine solche unter den
obwaltenden Umständen geworden wäre; sie würde sich derselben
jedoch, wenn auch mit großer Ueberwindung unterzogen haben, weil
sie dies im Hinblick auf ihre Tochter und den Wunsch des Fürsten für
ihre Pflicht erachtete.
So blieb denn das alte Verhältniß zwischen ihnen bestehen und
Sidonie ergab sich jetzt in das Unabänderliche um so leichter, da in
ihrem Herzen die Liebe mit neuer Frische aufgeblüht war und die
Hoffnung sie beglückte, den geliebten Freund bald und für längere
Zeit in ihrer Nähe zu sehen.
Der Prinz war in Folge der Aufforderung des Barons mit diesem
ausgefahren.
Es war ein heiterer, warmer Herbsttag und sehr geeignet, das
Herz zu erfrischen und der Seele neue Spannkraft zu verleihen.
Auf Mühlfels Wunsch dehnte der Prinz die Fahrt mehr als
gewöhnlich aus, da ihm dieselbe behaglich war und er sich dabei
ziemlich gut unterhielt.
In seinem Palais zurückgekehrt, sprach der Prinz nach langer Zeit
wieder das Verlangen aus, den Abend irgendwo in einer heitern
Gesellschaft zu verleben, und Mühlfels benutzte diesen Umstand,
dem Prinzen den Vorschlag zu thun, das Souper bei seiner Mutter
einzunehmen. Er gab vor, daß die Letztere heute außer einigen dem
Prinzen angenehmen Personen auch ein paar Musik-Künstler von
Ruf bei sich empfangen würde, von denen man sich einigen Genuß
versprechen, der Prinz also eine kleine Unterhaltung erwarten dürfte.
Dieser Vorschlag gefiel dem Prinzen und er erklärte sich zur
Annahme desselben bereit.
Nichts konnte dem Baron gelegener kommen, und er eilte zu
seiner Mutter, um dieselbe des schnellsten mit Allem bekannt zu
machen, damit die erforderlichen Anordnungen noch getroffen
werden konnten.
Die Baronin wurde durch die erhaltene Nachricht sehr erfreut. Sie
besaß die Geschicklichkeit, dergleichen Soupers in der besten
Weise zu improvisiren, besonders wenn es galt, den Prinzen zu
empfangen und nebenbei nicht eben geringe Vortheile zu erzielen.
Frau von Lieben wurde vor allen Dingen mit des Prinzen Besuch
bekannt gemacht und zugleich mit ihrer Tochter eingeladen, indem
sie nicht unterließ, ihr über das Verhalten der Letzteren dem Prinzen
gegenüber vertrauliche Winke zu geben.
Die Baronin strengte alle Kräfte an, scheute weder Mittel noch
Mühe, um das Souper so angenehm als möglich zu machen.
Seinem Versprechen gemäß, erschien der Prinz etwa um die neunte
Abendstunde; aber obgleich die musikalischen Leistungen auch
ausgezeichnet genannt werden mußten, das Souper auserlesen war,
so schienen dieselben dem Prinzen doch keinen besondern
Geschmack abzugewinnen. Dies war auch in Bezug auf das Fräulein
von Lieben der Fall, so viel sie sich auch bemühte, ihre Reize
geltend zu machen.
Zwar unterhielt sich der Prinz mit den Damen eine kurze Zeit; sein
früher Aufbruch verrieth jedoch das geringe Interesse, das er für
diese Schönheit hegte.
So war es in der That. Denn als der Baron an dem nächsten Tage
den Prinzen besuchte und die Rede auf das Fräulein leitete,
bemerkte der Prinz: »Die Lieben ist ein hübsches Mädchen; aber
nicht nach meinem Geschmack! Ich habe alle diese Koketten und
Salondamen herzlich satt, bei denen es doch nur auf Eroberungen
abgesehen ist. Ueber alle Kunst und Künstelei im Benehmen und
Toilette kommt man bei ihnen zu keiner Natur. All’ dieser Flitter,
Schönpflästerchen und Schminke, womit sie sich nach ihrer Meinung
verschönen, ekelt mich an. Etwas Anderes wäre es mit einer
einfachen, frischen Natur, in der noch die ursprüngliche Kraft und
Schönheit zu finden ist; das könnte mich reizen und mir Interesse
abgewinnen. Davon ist hier aber nicht die Rede. Wie die Hohen so
die Niederen! Alle sind sich gleich und alle langweilig!«
»Sie haben Recht, Hoheit, und es ergeht mir wie Ihnen. Aber was
bleibt uns unter solchen Umständen übrig, wollen wir uns nicht in
das Unvermeidliche fügen? Zum Entbehren werden Sie sich nicht
bequemen wollen, dazu sind Sie nicht geschaffen und Ihre Natur
eignet sich nicht zum Trappisten; so werden Sie zugreifen müssen.«
»Pah, pah! Zugreifen müssen!« spöttelte der Prinz und fügte
hinzu: »Sie sprechen, als ob wir nicht in der Welt lebten und lediglich
auf diesen langweiligen Ort angewiesen wären! Wollten wir uns nur
ein wenig umschauen, so würden wir manchen Genuß entdecken.«
»Und dennoch bezweifle ich das, nachdem ich erfahren, daß eine
so seltene Schönheit, wie die Lieben, keinen Eindruck mehr auf Sie
macht.«
»Sie wissen, weshalb, Mühlfels, und damit Basta!« fiel der Prinz
mit bestimmtem Ton ein, und der Baron kannte den Letzteren zu gut,
um noch länger das Interesse der bezeichneten Dame zu vertreten.
Ueberdies sprach der Prinz den Wunsch aus, eine Spazierfahrt zu
machen, und schnitt damit alle weiteren Unterhaltungen über diese
Angelegenheit ab.
Nach kurzer Zeit führte sie der Wagen aus der Stadt und der
reizenden, mit bewaldeten Höhen, stillen Seen und lieblichen
Fernsichten ausgestatteten Umgegend zu.
Auch heute war es ein heiterer Tag, der wie früher günstig auf den
Prinzen wirkte und seine Stimmung besserte. Nach einer kurzen
Fahrt erreichten sie eine an dem Wege gelegene sehr hübsche Villa,
die ein zierlich gehaltener Garten umschloß. Vor derselben breitete
sich der See aus, der in weiter Ferne die in Duft verschwimmenden
Ufer bespülte und dem Auge die mannichfachsten Aussichten
gewährte und dadurch dem Landhause einen ganz besondern Reiz
verlieh. Man konnte sich zu einem süßen Stillleben keinen
geeigneteren Ort als diesen wünschen.
Des Prinzen Aufmerksamkeit wurde darauf hingelenkt, und es
erwachte der Wunsch in ihm, sich das Haus und die Gartenanlagen
näher zu betrachten. Er ließ den Wagen halten, stieg aus, schritt bis
an das Gitter und schaute hinein.
»Sehen Sie, Mühlfels,« sprach er, »ein hübsches Haus, einsam
und lauschig gelegen! Da müßte es sich angenehm wohnen lassen,
natürlich in Gesellschaft eines Wesens, das demjenigen gleicht, wie
ich es mir wünsche. In dieser Ruhe und Abgezogenheit von dem
Treiben der Welt müßten sich uns ganz neue Genüsse darbieten,
nach denen ich mich sehne und deren ich bedarf, wenn mir nicht das
Leben und Treiben schaal erscheinen soll. Doch ich glaube, ich bin
sentimental!« rief er lachend und fuhr alsdann fort: »Lassen Sie uns
die Herrlichkeit betrachten, vielleicht komme ich dabei zu anderen
Gedanken.«
Sie begaben sich in den Garten, um von hier in das Landhaus zu
gelangen. Die in dem letzteren herrschende Stille und allerlei
Anordnungen deuteten darauf hin, daß es von dem Besitzer bereits
verlassen sein müßte. So war es in der That, wie ein bald
erscheinender Hüter der Villa erklärte. Die Herrschaft war seit
einigen Wochen nach Paris gezogen, um den Winter daselbst zu
verleben, und das Landhaus daher unbewohnt.
»Desto besser,« meinte der Prinz, »so kann ich meine Neugier
ohne zu stören befriedigen; denn ich bin wirklich gespannt, ob sich
meine Erwartung bestätigt und die innere Einrichtung dem äußeren
Wesen entspricht.«
Der Diener der Villa beeilte sich, die Thüren zu öffnen und die
vornehmen Herren einzulassen.
»Vortrefflich, vortrefflich!« rief der Prinz, nachdem sie einige
Zimmer durchschritten hatten; »ganz, wie ich es mir gedacht habe.
Reich und geschmackvoll, und was fehlt, kann leicht ersetzt
werden!«
Sie traten aus dem Gartensalon auf die Veranda, und der Prinz
ließ einen Ruf der Ueberraschung vernehmen, indem sich seinem
Auge die reizendsten Aussichten darboten.
»Der Besitzer,« wandte er sich an Mühlfels, »ist in der That wegen
dieser Villa beneidenswerth, und ich gestehe Ihnen, m ü ß t e ich
nicht d o r t wohnen, so zöge ich h i e h e r. Lassen Sie uns nun auch
noch die Zimmer des zweiten Flügels sehen,« sprach er nach
kurzem Schauen und ging in das Haus zurück.
Der Diener öffnete die Thür, und sie traten in ein luftiges, mit einer
Menge guter Gemälde geziertes Gemach. Daneben befand sich ein
ähnliches, jedoch einfach ausgestattetes Zimmer, in welchem in der
Nähe des Fensters eine verhängte Staffelei stand.
»Sieh da, auch die Kunst fand hier eine Stätte!« rief der Prinz und
näherte sich der Staffelei.
Der Diener beeilte sich zu melden, daß das älteste Fräulein der
Herrschaft sich mit dem Malen abgebe.
»So, so,« warf der Prinz hin und wollte, wahrscheinlich in der
Voraussetzung, eine gewöhnliche Dilettantenarbeit zu finden, an der
Staffelei vorübergehen, als er sich plötzlich besann und die Frage an
den Diener richtete, ob unter der Hülle etwa ein Bild sei und er das
sehen dürfte.
Der Diener bejahte und bemerkte, während er die Hülle entfernte,
daß das gnädige Fräulein dasselbe gemalt hätte.
»Parbleu! Ein reizendes Gesicht, eine kostbare Büste!« rief der
Prinz, als er das Portrait erblickt hatte. »Das ist wol eine Dame des
Hauses?« fragte er, das Bild mit dem höchsten Interesse
betrachtend, das ein junges Mädchen in der damals beliebten
Schäfertracht darstellte, wie sie uns der Pinsel Watteau’s aufbewahrt
hat.
»Halten zu Gnaden, Hoheit, das Bild stellt nur ein gewöhnliches
Landmädchen vor, die auf des Fräuleins Wunsch bisweilen hieher
gekommen ist. Wie ich gehört habe, hat das Fräulein das Mädchen
irgendwo gesehen und ein so großes Gefallen an ihm gefunden, daß
sie es abconterfeit hat.«
»Was sagen Sie, Mühlfels? Ist das nicht ein wundervolles Kind?«
fragte der Prinz und fügte leise hinzu: »Ein eigenthümlicher Zufall,
der mich hier eintreten ließ; denn ich fand, was ich wünschte: die
unverfälschte Natur im Kleide der liebreizendsten Schönheit.«
Mühlfels, dessen Ueberraschung beim Erblicken des Bildes noch
größer als diejenige des Prinzen war, beeilte sich, des Prinzen
Fragen zu bejahen und zugleich seine Bewunderung für das Bild an
den Tag zu legen, während ein selbstgefälliges Lächeln seinen Mund
umspielte.
Nachdem der Prinz das Bild nochmals betrachtet hatte, verließ er
das Gemach und kehrte in den Garten zurück, um dessen Anlagen
näher in Augenschein zu nehmen. Als er sich mit dem Baron allein
sah, bemerkte er gegen diesen:
»Wie der Diener sagte, befindet sich das Mädchen wahrscheinlich
in der Nähe; ich muß es sehen. Es wird aufzufinden sein, Mühlfels;
der Diener wird Ihnen den Wohnort desselben nennen können oder
könnte sich zur Erforschung desselben bemühen. Sparen Sie weder
Mühe noch Geld, mein Verlangen zu befriedigen. Das ist so ein
Mädchen, wie ich es wünsche, und mit solch einem Naturkinde in
dieser Villa die Stunden zu verträumen, das wäre ein überaus süßer
Genuß. Ich werde erst wieder Geschmack an diesem langweiligen
Leben finden, wenn ich mich an diesen sonnigen Augen erlaben, an
diesem schalkhaften Lächeln ergötzen kann. Ich verlasse mich auf
Ihren Eifer, Mühlfels, und hoffe, Sie werden mich bald, hören Sie,
b a l d, recht b a l d durch die Nachricht erfreuen, daß Sie das
Mädchen aufgefunden haben!«

Global Perspectives On Stem Cell Technologies 1St Edition Aditya Bharadwaj Eds Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Perspectives On Stem Cell Technologies 1St Edition Aditya Bharadwaj Eds Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Perspectives On Stem Cell Technologies 1St Edition Aditya Bharadwaj Eds Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Perspectives on Stem Cell

Technologies 1st Edition Aditya

ISBN 978-3-319-63786-0 ISBN 978-3-319-63787-7 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017954290

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

Cover illustration: © Henry Petrides

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

In my 2013 book, Good Science: The Ethical Choreography of Stem Cell

Stem Cell Intersections: Perspectives and Experiences”) that Aditya

road to recovery or have reduced symptoms and/or improved quality of

Chancellor’s Professor, UC Berkeley; Charis Thompson

Stem Cell Intersections: Perspectives and Experiences 1

Part I Regenerating Ethics 25

 omewhere Over the Rainbow, Cells Do Fly 27

I ntersections of Technological and Regulatory Zones

 taging Scientific Selves and Pluripotent Cells in

Part II Therapeutic Horizons 115

 stablishment and Use of Injectable Human Embryonic

 re-blastomeric Regeneration: German Patients Encounter

Part III Patient Positions 171

 ctive Parents, Parental Activism: The Adipose Stem

 ccidental Events: Regenerative Medicine, Quadriplegia,

 iocrossing Heterotopia: Revisiting Contemporary

© The Author(s) 2018 1

tific possibility of purging the cellular form of therapeutic promise but

rapidly shifting and intersecting in ways previously unimaginable that

The emerging treatment modalities in a globalized research and thera-

gold standard in which biogenetic tissue could become normalized as

Instead we can merely create conditions for voices to emerge. Taken

Stem Cell Theory Machine

that are in themselves incompatible’ (Foucault 1986, p. 25). These spaces

… dissent and assent and other interests in relation to fields of science

Perhaps it is time to embrace and advocate the open-ended nature of

as the threshold for precarious border [bio]crossing of the ethical terrain.

Policy and regulatory thinking that assumes simplistic divisions such

How do we then accommodate this call for localized ethical contin-

occasions a willful manifestation) of processes that both operate and are

I have had the rare privilege of documenting and following biogra-

Models of Donor–Researcher Relations in the Induced Pluripotent Stem

and limited to: what is or is not allowed by regulatory authorities in

experiences in the larger context of engineered shifts in the Indian policy

in unregulated and unregimented nation-states include fear of mass epi-

This book produces a unique account of the emerging research/therapy

and where we are located: institutionally, culturally, as well as geographi-

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and

Aditya Bharadwaj is a professor at the Graduate Institute of International and

Three of the most striking features of technological change in the twenty-

© The Author(s) 2018 27

are the same recombinant intersections that enable unprecedented scales

The Bioindustrial Revolution

tempting not to explain technological change at all. This is because one of

made large-scale industrial manufacturing possible. To the contrary, the

only human reproduction, but biology in general. In sum, biology—

Ungefähr drei Monate waren über die näher bezeichneten

You might also like

Stem Cell Intersections: Perspectives and Experiences 1

Part I Regenerating Ethics 25

omewhere Over the Rainbow, Cells Do Fly 27

I ntersections of Technological and Regulatory Zones

taging Scientific Selves and Pluripotent Cells in

Part II Therapeutic Horizons 115

stablishment and Use of Injectable Human Embryonic

re-blastomeric Regeneration: German Patients Encounter

Part III Patient Positions 171

ctive Parents, Parental Activism: The Adipose Stem

ccidental Events: Regenerative Medicine, Quadriplegia,

iocrossing Heterotopia: Revisiting Contemporary

Stem Cell Theory Machine

The Bioindustrial Revolution